The number of events is in an infinite regress is an integer so it can't be greater than any integer.

The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any integer.

The rest of your argument fails from there. — Banno

Whats wrong with that statement?

That would only be true if you were infinite. The universe being infinite would only mean its properties are inexhaustible. — Merkwurdichliebe

But each part of the universe is an arrangement of atoms. Are you saying it is impossible for two parts of the universe to have the same arrangement of atoms?

Exactly. That's how you begin your attempted reduction to the absurd. But you aren't logical enough to make it work. You just zoom in, follow the chain for a while, then make a giant logical leap to a presumed start. — S

Your point is not coming across. What I do is perfectly logical. If an object has no start then it does not exist. Try to imagine a 3D object with no identifiable start - no such object can exist - it would be incorporeal - it is the exact same thing with time - things without starts cannot exist.

Here is another proof that an infinite regress is impossible:

a. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
b. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
c. But can be a number greater than every other number
d. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1 ?)
e. So is not a number (from c and d)
d. Contradicts [a] which says it is a number

Can you expand?

So Cantor proved the universe was homogeneous?

No, you start by assuming that an infinite regress has no start, and then you do as I described above, which still assumes a start, just not straight away. First, you pretend to be logical, and then you assume a start. — S

I do not 'assume an infinite regress has no start' - if it had a start it would not be infinite.

An infinite sequence need not contain every possible permutation. So "101010101010101..." need never contain "...111...". — Banno

But the universe is random; it is not in perfect order like '1010101010', its random like '100011100101110'. So go on long enough, any bit sequence is guaranteed to reoccur.

Plus, it's ostensibly about infinity, so a certain obsessive moron is going to have a field day (or more, depending on how long this thread floats on the front page). — SophistiCat

I think a bit of respect for other people's viewpoints is in order. Finitism is a perfectly respectable standpoint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

I'm sure it must have been asked and answered, but I don't see it If there is a non-material God, what is/are he,she, it, they if not material? — tim wood

It has not been answered. We only know of one way of existence. Are other forms of existence possible? It is hard to conceive of other forms of existence. Is it hard because they are just not possible? Or is it hard because we are so used to just one form of existence and have never experienced alternatives?

I think the challenge is how do you represent information if it is not with material? All I can think of is energy.

God made spacetime so is not of spacetime. Maybe the photon is a guide - it is timeless and in a sense spaceless (all distances in the direction of travel compress to zero). So maybe God could be pure energy of some form?

The other possibility christian2017 mentioned is that God is material but higher dimensional. Like being non-material, that would allow him to evade the consequences of the Big Bang alive. But if God is material, he maybe dead by now.

Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?" — Frank Apisa

It is impossible to have a creation without a creator.

The moment you postulate a "first cause"...you essentially are conceding that somethings have no cause...but "always was" — Frank Apisa

Always existing is impossible, see:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1

Ah, yes. But he has an argument against an infinite regress. An argument which resembles ancient logic which leads to absurd conclusions. Except that his logic only gets partway through the breakdown and then just, again, simply assumes a start, instead of continuing on to infinity. So it is actually far worse, because although this ancient logic is unsound, it is at least valid, whereas his logic makes an invalid logical leap to his desired conclusion. — S

Where does it break down? I do not assume a start; I assume that an infinite regress has no start. You have either not read or not understood my argument.

Whilst by ancient logic, Homer can never reach the end of the path — S

We already discussed this. By ancient logic, the universe is discrete is the point.

But remember, none of us have presented any criticism! — S

Frank and S have presented pages of waffle not containing any actual criticism of my arguments.

Well I started from the axiom 'can't get something from nothing' and deduced you can't create yourself. Its a good axiom IMO.

Or to create yourself, you'd have to exist temporally before yourself, which is impossible?

It isn't a deep argument at all. It's quite shallow. He assumes the "first mover" by writing on behalf of a church and education system that will jail him, possibly torture or kill him, if he doesn't. It's obvious from the flow of the dialogue that he began with the premise that God exists and is writing everything else in an attempt to fortify that position. It's a house of cards with a complimentary 90mph wind. — whollyrolling

Thats why I thought updating it for the 21st century would be appropriate. Thats why I added an additional 5 arguments to justify the existence of a first cause (which you have ignored).

There are no arguments against a first cause and 10 arguments for a first cause.

In what way is it not an argument?

It respects the conservation of energy. It does not produce matter. Its all transitory.

Im not claiming something can start by itself, I do not know.
You DO know, so tell me the answer. How do you know that simething cannot? What evidence do you have for this claim? — DingoJones

I adopt the axiom: can't get something from nothing.
Then if there is nothing, we cannot have something.
So to create one's self from nothing is impossible.

1. The "argument from motion" is a paradox. It is full of sentiment, assumption and speculation. Just as easily as we can speculate that there must be a "first mover" and assign a human personality to it, we can also speculate that "the singularity" was not the first event to have ever occurred in all of reality. Also, if a "first mover" was to exist as was assumed in the "proof", the implication is that the "first mover" began all things and is outside all time and space, eternal. If not time and space, then something must extend infinitely in all directions through all dimensions or some lack thereof, and this is assumed to be the "first mover". Either without time and space, or if time and space were infinite, both of which are impossible, it would be irrational to think that any instance could occur. By this rationale, we don't exist, and neither does the "first mover". — whollyrolling

Where exactly does he 'assumes' a first mover exists in his proof mean?

2. First Cause. He argues against himself again here, determining that the "first mover" can't have existed eternally because nothing can exist prior to itself, and nothing exists which hasn't been initiated by something else. To paraphrase this nonsense, he says "I'm confused, therefore God". It's ridiculous to use examples from observable reality to support claims of imaginary things that not only have no foundation in observable reality but effectively contradict it. — whollyrolling

He is a little confused maybe. But the solution is to make the first cause timeless. Then it all fits perfectly.

. Necessary Being. Here he hits the nail on the head by iterating what I just pointed out in my previous rant: that this is all absurd. Again, a paradox. "I'm confused, therefore God". — whollyrolling

This is quite a deep argument as I explained in my commentary. I rephrase this argument as:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (would have no start), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

4. Degree. To assume any intrinsic valuation is preposterous. He is now preaching based on abstract human notions of nobility and truth that a God, who if human would be a raging sociopath, is responsible for all that is good and decent in humans but not responsible for anything that is corrupt or evil. — whollyrolling

I agree. I think he was just paying honour to St Aslim.

5. He presumes, again based on religious belief and in the absence of science, that anything that doesn't appear to be self-aware by human standards is unintelligent and aimless, which was fine in the 1200's, when everyone was a blithering moron, but none of this stuff holds true in modern times. — whollyrolling

His argument can be interpreted as the modern argument from design.

This argument, and it's no argument at all, is just another confused rant from a place of scientific ignorance and intellectual deficiency. If its writer isn't intellectually deficient, then he's attempting to mislead his reader and pander to authorities his life depends on. The only thing infinite here is the writer's self-contradiction. — whollyrolling

I note that you have ignored all of my commentary on the 5 ways. You have also ignored my additional arguments for a first cause.

Well it was posted ages ago and no-one has come up with a valid counter argument yet.

Please tell me how something can start by itself?

Time has a start proof is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

...while I don't think that my understanding of time is sufficient to justify a cause for it. Or not. — Pattern-chaser

Time had a start. Things just don't start themselves (just like it is impossible to create one's self).

It seemingly does hold, and that's the problem you have to contend with. — S

If cause and effect holds then there must be a timeless first cause. You are almost agreeing with me.

The logical resemblance is crystal clear. It's just a backwards chain and a forwards chain. You go into detail in a similar way that Zeno's paradoxes do, with a similar logic, and then at an arbitrary point, you randomly assert your dogma of a first cause, like the parallel conceivable dogma of a final destination. — S

Honestly you are talking about the Summa Theologica, one of the greatest works of philosophy, and calling it dogma.

You really want the logic to work in the special case of God, even though it doesn't work elsewhere — S

Please tell me where cause and effect does not hold?

Your reasoning against an infinite regress is just of the sort that Homer has to get halfway, and half of halfway, and so on, and then you randomly assert a first cause, which would be like randomly asserting a final destination. — S

My reasoning against an infinite regress is that it has no starting cause, so that the 2nd cause cannot be defined (because it is determined by the first cause), nor the 3rd, and so on. That is a topological argument that the start is causally connected to the rest of the infinite regress. It does not rely on infinitesimals.

I think the start if time requires a first cause; I don't see time starting by itself.

The point is that your Homer example demonstrates that space is discrete. So it is a valid argument that leads to the valid conclusion: that space is discrete (not that Homer can't walk the path).

That's like you reasoning that for the universe to have existed the time that it has done, then it must have existed half of that time, and half of that time, and half of that, and so on. Except that you then just randomly assert without reasonable justification that there must have been a first cause. — S

I never reason like this. Your example has a completely different structure to my argument.

Only if cause and effect applies in this scenario — Pattern-chaser

If you look back at:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

You will see that arguments B, C and E do not use cause and effect as an axiom.

And cause and effect applies. Quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy. They don't create matter.

If Homer can walk to the end of a path, then the universe can be without a first cause. — S

What do you have to back up this bald assertion?

Suppose Homer wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on. — S

So homer cannot walk to the end of the path so by your logic the universe has a first cause?

Your argument for the necessity of a first cause uses the same logic — S

No it does not. It's a topological argument. First cause is topologically connected (casually connected) to every other cause. Take away the first cause and everything else ceases to exist. It has nothing to do with infinitesimals.

If you don't believe that an arrow in flight must be motionless, then why do you believe that there must be a first cause?

Looks like the same kind of logic to me — S

I believe Zeno's paradoxes go away if you assume spacetime is discrete. So Zeno's paradoxes are actually proof via contradiction that spacetime is discrete. So they stand as valid logic.

Seriously, can you present a logical argument for a universe without a first cause?

It's not a big assumption. We have a timeless, powerful, intelligent first cause. Calling it God is more of a definition than an assumption IMO.

Of course not, but Zeno's arguments highlight the nonsensical nature of the continuum - that is the purpose of the arguments - not to prove an arrow is motionless.

Your suggestion of God (and Her existence) is not logically derived from anything. — Pattern-chaser

I go through the logical deduction of a first cause here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

I say at the start of the OP that I'm assuming the first cause is God.

Zeno's arguments have some merit; else we would not still reference them.

Describe it yourself. Describe to me the faults in Zeno's arguments.

When you were at school, did you just sit back and ask your teachers to explain everything to you, so you didn't really have to learn through tasks and challenges? If you had've done so, how do you think your teachers would've reacted? Is this reflective of your understanding of education? — S

I was asking you to describe the faults in my arguments. I don't see what purpose a discussion of Zeno's arguments serves at this point.

Although you have not - probably wisely - defined what God is, I see no reason to assume She is bound by the same constraints that apply to us humans. [And no reason to assume She is not so bound.] — Pattern-chaser

God is the creator of the universe; that is my definition. On the subject of God's sex, God is not the product of bisexual reproduction, so has no sex. It is merely conventional to refer to God as a 'him'.

Perhaps She has divine powers that make things different for Her, or maybe our misunderstanding of (in this case) time leads us to misunderstand? And so on. Speculation often only leads to ... more speculation. — Pattern-chaser

Your suggestion of divine powers is not logically derived from anything. My suggestion of a non-material nature of God is logically derived. I suggest we can make progress by sticking to logic rather than speculation.

The "2nd law of thermodynamics" is not a law, in the sense that it does not bind us, the universe or God. It's a guideline we have discovered that appears to apply to most of the things we know of, most of the time. It might apply to a material, or non-material, God, but if it did, how would it apply? — Pattern-chaser

It is the most fundamental law of science. It transcends even our universe; stuff gets disorganised that is a fact. If you can give me an example of where the 2nd law does not hold?

If God is material and subject to time then the 2nd law says he is dead.

Describe the bad logic please.

Does cause and effect apply to God, for example? — Pattern-chaser

God is timeless so he is beyond cause and effect. The only way out of the infinite regress of time stretching back forever is to have a timeless first cause.

What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? — Pattern-chaser

Anything material is probably subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it becomes disorganised with time - ages and dies effectively. So there is an argument that a material God would be dead by now. So the argument of material Vs non-material God could be cast as dead Vs alive God.

I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all — Pattern-chaser

We can make some deductions. For example, how did material God get away from the Big Bang? It would of blown him to bits setting that off. Hence non-material God seems more likely.

Do you understand how it can be doubted that Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise, and that the flying arrow is motionless? — S

I don't find either paradoxical; the universe is discrete, so not very good examples.

A logical argument can lead to something at odds with common sense? This is true. Relativity and QM are both examples where common sense does not cut it.

I think it works as he says from a probability perspective. If there is a non-zero probability of an event, then with infinite time, that event must occur an infinite number of times.

I think it is a good counter example but numbers are different from events or people - numbers are always distinct from each other - people or events have a (very small) chance of being identical.

I don't understand how you can doubt there is a first cause, all the evidence is presented here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

It is very obvious that there must be a first cause so discussing the attributes of the first cause is relevant.

Just because there is only one type of reality we are familiar with does not mean other types of reality are not possible. Logically whatever created spacetime is not of spacetime so non-material is not as bizarre as it sounds.

Space can't exist without time so it could be that the first cause is 'spaceless' as well as timeless.

If the universe is infinite, that would mean there is an infinite number of 'me' out there — JohnLocke

This is one of the reasons the universe is not infinite; the consequences are too bizarre. It also leads to the measure paradox - everything happens an infinite number of time no matter how unlikely so everything is in a sense everything is equally likely in a infinite universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

So, if there is indeed an infinite number of 'me' out there, then when this me dies, I will be born again and live exactly the same life as before? If this me dies, will my consciousness immediately 'jump to another me that is not dead' at some other place in an infinite universe? — JohnLocke

There is a sort of similar idea with quantum immortality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

If topology of time is circular, we could all end up living the same lives:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Friedrich_Nietzsche

It has to do with logic. But there's no point explaining it because you're an evangelical. — S

As usual nothing substantive to say :(

How can God be non-material if God doesn't exist, and how can you begin a discussion by assuming that God exists if there's no foundation for the claim? My commentary is directly related to the topic. The OP has begun by assuming that God exists, which implies that it doesn't, and I'm arguing that it's a contradictory, self-defeating and unproductive position. The existence of God has to be demonstrated in order to discuss its properties. — whollyrolling

The foundation for the claim God exists is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

If you want to debate if God exists, I suggest doing it on the above thread where all the evidence is laid out. This thread is about whether God is material or not.

"It seems simple to me, the universe can't have existed forever (it would have no start so none of it would exist)
— Devans99

Yeah, yeah. And Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise. And the flying arrow is motionless. — S

What exactly has that got to do with whether the universe has ever existed?