It would make far more sense if nothing were to exist. But... here we are! Since we exist, and can't begin to truly comprehend ideas like infinite and nothingness, I'm thinking we must be missing pieces of the puzzle. I'm pretty sure we won't be figuring out the solution in our lifetimes... just hoping there will be answers at some point.

Is there any difference between the world existing and God imagining that the world exists?

I can't see how our ability to imagine things that we already know about, like babies, could be an argument for God's existence. What would be way more compelling would be to make an argument for God's existence based on pure creativity in-itself.

@Noble _Dust

My idea was that if we can say that the ability to be imagined is a predicate of all things, the only way to end an infinite regress would be to have an unimaginable thing which still exists, which fits into many people's idea of God. By the same logic, if one were to use inherent creativity, God would have to lack any creativity in himself, which would make it impossible to have created the Universe. In order to create something with purpose- as we can see is the case of all things in the Universe- one must first imagine its purpose. It would make sense therefore to say that God could imagine the purpose of all things, yet himself remain unimaginable- then God could create the Universe, but create nothing as sophisticated as himself, explaining why our Universe is limited by the laws of nature, limited by God's imagination.

There cannot be an infinite regress of existence — The Curiorist

I deny your premise!

This is just an idea I had inspired by the somewhat limited arguments of Anselm and Aquinas, which seem to contradict each other slightly; if God is the being that than which nothing greater can be conceived, the implication is the God must be infinitely great, so infinity does exist. Therefore, it seems that Aquinas would be wrong in denying the possibility of an infinite regress. — The Curiorist

Something could be infinite, God. Infinite regress however is the process to reach infinity which is impossible. These are different.

I deny your premise! — Mitchell

Infinite regress is a process of reaching to infinity by finite step which is impossible since infinity+anything finite=infinity.

@bahman
I would argue that infinity works on the same principles as an infinite regress. Just as something must have caused the last cause, something greater than the greatest conceivable thing can always be conceived.
Rather than God being the greatest conceivable being, it makes more sense to think of God as the only unconceivable being.

@mitchell
For what reason? By its very definition, existence must have a beginning and an end

By its very definition, existence must have a beginning and an end — The Curiorist

No, it does not. The chain of causes reaches back in time to the Big Bang. Now if cosmologists are right in thinking that there WAS something before the Big Bang, be it another universe, or parts of a larger multiuniverse, or whatever, then it is conceivable that the temporal chain of cause-effect has no beginning. Interesting that Edward Feser, whose Five Proofs of the Existence of God has been the topic of several threads here, accepts that the causal chain can go back infinitely in time. His arguments are quite different.

There cannot be an infinite regress of existence — The Curiorist

I agree with the other comments, viz., that the above quoted statement is false. There is nothing that precludes the possibility of an infinite regress of existence. It's certainly not contradictory, for example, to say that there could be an infinite number of finite beings extending into the past. There could also be an infinite number of causal links into the past. In terms of modal logic, this is true metaphysically and logically, i.e., it's certainly metaphysically and logically possible. It may not be the case that these things are true, but surely the possibility exists.

Therefore, it seems that Aquinas would be wrong in denying the possibility of an infinite regress. — The Curiorist

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Aquinas didn't say an infinite regress was impossible? I thought he actually specifically said that it could not be shown through philosophical argument that the universe came into being due to God's creative act, and that this was a faith-based claim.

Interesting that Edward Feser, whose Five Proofs of the Existence of God has been the topic of several threads here, accepts that the causal chain can go back infinitely in time. His arguments are quite different. — Mitchell

Yes, Feser's arguments are not focused on the temporal cosmological arguments but are focused on hierarchical arguments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Aquinas didn't say an infinite regress was impossible? I thought he actually specifically said that it could not be shown through philosophical argument that the universe came into being due to God's creative act, and that this was a faith-based claim. — darthbarracuda

You are not wrong. He wanted to claim that Aristotle, who did not believe the universe was created, was rational and, in fact, represented the best that reason could provide. We "know" that the world was created, not because it is the rational position, but because of revelation, as recorded in Scripture.

if God is the being that than which nothing greater can be conceived, the implication is the God must be infinitely great, so infinity does exist. — The Curiorist

I don't agree with this. To say "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", is to limit conception, and this is to deny infinity. So that stated premise is a premise which limits conception, denying infinity. It says that infinity cannot be conceived.

It would make sense that humans evolved to be able to conceive of ideas that were necessary for survival, such as basic laws of physics. But we still have a long way to go to even understand our universe. Quantum mechanics, dark energy, and much more still doesn't make sense to us. Understanding these things weren't ever necessary for survival, so it may be possible that our brains are biologically too limited to be able to understand certain very complicated concepts. Or maybe as we progress, we will understand it all, who knows?

But right now all we know is how to model our universe abstractly in a very basic way. Just because everything in our universe has a cause, I don't think that necessarily means that the universe itself needs a cause. Just to explain "cause" you'd need a concept of time. Time is connected to space. So to say the universe itself needed a cause would maybe imply that time (and therefore space) exists outside of the universe's space which gets really confusing. Maybe our universe is eternal. Or maybe there is another dimension of space that is eternal and that is what our universe came from. This is interesting speculation.

I think we should be careful and not assume the laws of our universe apply outside of our universe. We can speculate, but acknowledging our ignorance seems wise to me. It's obvious that there are forces that are outside our knowledge, and they may not be conceivable to humans for a long time, if ever. I prefer to not label it as god because the word carries a lot of baggage. I'd rather just say that I have no idea what's going on.

Thinking about infinite regress. There is a difference between how regress works in thought and how it might work in being. We can come to an agreement in thought, but I don't see how we can be definite agreement in terms of being (unless god pops up), since it would assume that being follows thought and not the other way around.

I would argue that infinity works on the same principles as an infinite regress. Just as something must have caused the last cause, something greater than the greatest conceivable thing can always be conceived.
Rather than God being the greatest conceivable being, it makes more sense to think of God as the only unconceivable being. — The Curiorist

You didn't get my point. Infinite regress is the process of reaching to infinity.

it makes more sense to think of God as the only unconceivable being. — The Curiorist

If God is "unconceivable" or "inconceivable", that seems to be good reason for saying there is no God.

Is there any difference between the world existing and God imagining that the world exists? — T Clark

Is there any difference between the universe existing, and a universe in which a few humans think there is a god in the existing universe?

i will start with a simple statement .... before you judge it , simply observe the peculiar nature of it all ..
the bible says something along the lines of .... "and he created man in his own image " .....
so god has arms , legs , wears shoes ...definitely shaves ...and I hope he brushes his teeth .

or perhaps .... man created god in HIS image to enhance his ego even more .... which one sounds more realistic knowing what we know of this species we call humans .


with that said , once you believe this deity is just an exaggerated version of us with supernatural powers , everything you conceive is biased by the simple fact that you believe his (again ...his ??? a guy ... interesting , coincidence that this is a male dominated planet .... hmmm ..must be coincidence ) rituals and ways to go about things is like us .... uses imagination to create .... thought or imagination is a phantom form created by the mind , imagination has no existence outside a human mind.

if you want to experience a bit closer of an answer to what , who is god .... start by questioning who YOU are ....beyond your name and life experiences ....

there are concepts of the universe , such as infinity and eternity that seems almost supernatural and while we may speculate about this or that ... all they are is speculations ....

but I will leave you with a powerful pointer to the reality that is life .....


there is one thing that is eternal in nature and regardless of any condition of the universe it will never cease to exist ...... the present moment , it has always been , it always is and it will always be Now ...

question your existence solely in the present moment and you may find the answers you seek , don't be surprised when your questions no longer need answers .

i will start with a simple statement .... before you judge it , simply observe the peculiar nature of it all ..
the bible says something along the lines of .... "and he created man in his own image " .....
so god has arms , legs , wears shoes ...definitely shaves ...and I hope he brushes his teeth . — rodrigo

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/imago-body.html

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/imago-body.html




I appreciate the full explanation , and while it does attempt to describe some relationship between our state of being and his image .... why exactly are we the only chosen ones ? does that sound like one love of all ? .... it sounds like mankind needs to be special and god of course conformed this for us to make it true.

we also take after "him" with "rational structure" .... rational structure implies having a brain right ?? because rationalizing something doesn't get done with the soul ... more like the brain ... so god has a brain .....

the passage you quote certainly seems more eloquent and closer to the truth in the beginning , but in my opinion it starts to contradict itself ...... a book written by men will always have men's opinions and judgments on them ......


i am ok with disagreeing

I was just pointing out what the Imago Dei represents within the tradition of Christianity, in contrast to your caricature of it.

My new definition of God is a being with the ability to imagine everything in the Universe, independent of empirical evidence. Additionally, this is the only predicate that we can truly know about God. — The Curiorist

That's anthropomorphic.

(...but even the use of a name like "God", or the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic too.)

I suggest that even your definition is more than can be meaningfully or reliably said.

Anyway, the words "a being" are usually used to refer to a physical living thing in a physical world.

All this conceptual reasoned logical and quasi-logical argument is out-of-place in an attempt to apply it outside the realm of the describable and explainable.

Curiously, it always turns out that most (all?) of the people discussing God in these discussions are Atheists.

Maybe the bottom-line in these discussions is that no one here would say that you should believe what you don't know of or perceive reason to believe. Think of all that argument that would be avoided.

Michael Ossipoff