Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?

[Polymath257]

That's not an assumption being made. I wish I could say this discussion was going somewhere, but you just don't seem to get it.

Then please explain, in detail, what you see as the problem with an infinite regress of causes.

I said I would investigate a little bit more that argument you made in which Infinite Regress was considered problematic.
Here we are:
Infinite Regress Arguments
The section on Local Theoretical Vices explains why arguing for an Infinite Regress of Causes could be problematic.
Either it would take an infinite amount of time (of which the universe is thought to have a finite amount of - Big Bang) or the time between causes must be infinitely small (and we have reason to suspect that time might be quantized).

Except, as I have pointed out, many models of quantum gravity have a multiverse where the Big bang is a transition state and NOT a beginning.

Again, this opens up the possibility of an actual physical infinite regress in time. But I would agree that if time is finite and quantized, an infinite regress in time is impossible. But the first assumption is very far from proven.

From your link:
"Peano’s axioms for arithmetic, e.g., yield an infinite regress. We are told that zero is a natural number, that every natural number has a natural number as a successor, that zero is not the successor of any natural number, and that if x" role="presentation">x and y" role="presentation">y are natural numbers with the same successor, then x=y" role="presentation">x=y. This yields an infinite regress. Zero has a successor. It cannot be zero, since zero is not any natural number’s successor, so it must be a new natural number: one. One must have a successor. It cannot be zero, as before, nor can it be one itself, since then zero and one would have the same successor and hence be identical, and we have already said they must be distinct. So there must be a new natural number that is the successor of one: two. Two must have a successor: three. And so on … And this infinite regress entails that there are infinitely many things of a certain kind: natural numbers. But few have found this worrying. After all, there is no independent reason to think that the domain of natural numbers is finite—quite the opposite."

I recommend the entire link discussing Infinite Regress Arguments to you.

Then you should make more of an effort to understand the properties of these infinite sets. What properties make your Infinite Regress acceptable? Because Infinite Regress is not acceptable simply because you imagine it to be so.

What aspects make it *unacceptable*? Believe me, I am quite aware of the properties of infinite sets. If you wish to discuss different sorts of infinity (cardinal, ordinal, measure, limits, etc), I am more than happy to do so. But that would be another thread since *this* one is devoted to the question of whether the assumption there is a God is unnecessary to understand the physical world.

Which it is.

 

[night912]

That's not an assumption being made. I wish I could say this discussion was going somewhere, but you just don't seem to get it.



I said I would investigate a little bit more that argument you made in which Infinite Regress was considered problematic.
Here we are:
Infinite Regress Arguments
The section on Local Theoretical Vices explains why arguing for an Infinite Regress of Causes could be problematic.
Either it would take an infinite amount of time (of which the universe is thought to have a finite amount of - Big Bang) or the time between causes must be infinitely small (and we have reason to suspect that time might be quantized).

I recommend the entire link discussing Infinite Regress Arguments to you.



Then you should make more of an effort to understand the properties of these infinite sets. What properties make your Infinite Regress acceptable? Because Infinite Regress is not acceptable simply because you imagine it to be so.

From my observations, apparently, you two are talking pass each other because you are discussing about two separate issues. One disagrees with an infinite regress because of the attempt at dissecting it. The other argues for infinite regress in regards to the OP. The inclusion of mathematics is just adding unnecessary complexity, resulting in more confusion and distancing.

In regards to the OP, mathematics is irrelevant. The only relevant thing in question is, an ultimate cause vs an infinite regress(as a whole concept, the individual causes are not essential), which a simple explanation is needed. An infinite regression is acceptable if and only if, it explains why an ultimate cause is not necessary and/or impossible, which it can and did explained it. If there is no end to the causes, then it is impossible to have a final(first/ultimate) cause. The ultimate cause is contingent on there being only finite amount of causes, and the exclusion of infinite causes. Once infinite is introduced, the ultimate cause argument is destroyed and deemed as being impossible. An infinite regression however, is not contingent on there being an ultimate cause, because it can then be logically argued that there are an infinite amount of "ultimate" causes.

 

[Ponder This]

Then please explain, in detail, what you see as the problem with an infinite regress of causes.
Except, as I have pointed out, many models of quantum gravity have a multiverse where the Big bang is a transition state and NOT a beginning.
Again, this opens up the possibility of an actual physical infinite regress in time. But I would agree that if time is finite and quantized, an infinite regress in time is impossible. But the first assumption is very far from proven.
From your link:
"Peano’s axioms for arithmetic, e.g., yield an infinite regress. We are told that zero is a natural number, that every natural number has a natural number as a successor, that zero is not the successor of any natural number, and that if x" role="presentation">x and y" role="presentation">y are natural numbers with the same successor, then x=y" role="presentation">x=y. This yields an infinite regress. Zero has a successor. It cannot be zero, since zero is not any natural number’s successor, so it must be a new natural number: one. One must have a successor. It cannot be zero, as before, nor can it be one itself, since then zero and one would have the same successor and hence be identical, and we have already said they must be distinct. So there must be a new natural number that is the successor of one: two. Two must have a successor: three. And so on … And this infinite regress entails that there are infinitely many things of a certain kind: natural numbers. But few have found this worrying. After all, there is no independent reason to think that the domain of natural numbers is finite—quite the opposite."
What aspects make it *unacceptable*? Believe me, I am quite aware of the properties of infinite sets. If you wish to discuss different sorts of infinity (cardinal, ordinal, measure, limits, etc), I am more than happy to do so. But that would be another thread since *this* one is devoted to the question of whether the assumption there is a God is unnecessary to understand the physical world.
Which it is.

If you haven't justified the infinite regress, then all you've done is say: Here is an infinite regress, but don't think too hard about it; just believe me that it's okay. I know that not every infinite regress is okay, but I'm not going to justify this one. You should just assume it works.
You should spend some time thinking about what properties have to be assumed to make infinite regress work and what properties of the universe can be applied to this idea. For example, you ought to consider the concept of continuity and ask yourself if the universe is in some sense continuous or not. There's lots for you to consider, but I won't make your argument for you. If you can't justify it... that's on you.

From my observations, apparently, you two are talking pass each other because you are discussing about two separate issues. One disagrees with an infinite regress because of the attempt at dissecting it. The other argues for infinite regress in regards to the OP. The inclusion of mathematics is just adding unnecessary complexity, resulting in more confusion and distancing.

In regards to the OP, mathematics is irrelevant. The only relevant thing in question is, an ultimate cause vs an infinite regress(as a whole concept, the individual causes are not essential), which a simple explanation is needed. An infinite regression is acceptable if and only if, it explains why an ultimate cause is not necessary and/or impossible, which it can and did explained it. If there is no end to the causes, then it is impossible to have a final(first/ultimate) cause. The ultimate cause is contingent on there being only finite amount of causes, and the exclusion of infinite causes. Once infinite is introduced, the ultimate cause argument is destroyed and deemed as being impossible. An infinite regression however, is not contingent on there being an ultimate cause, because it can then be logically argued that there are an infinite amount of "ultimate" causes.

One argument is not made invalid because someone introduces another argument which is incomplete. If he can't justify the infinite regress, then he hasn't done anything and possibly he has even hurt his case.
As for (infinite) quantity of causes... there can be as many as you like. Even if he has an infinite causal chain, even if he were right that there were an infinite regress, he still hasn't shown his conclusion (with regards to the OP), just like you can have a infinite sequence where Achilles doesn't pass the tortoise... but in reality Achilles does pass the tortoise! His argument amounts to: I imagine that God is unnecessary.

If that's the extent of what he has to offer, then I don't need to say anything more.

Peace.

 

[Polymath257]

If you haven't justified the infinite regress, then all you've done is say: Here is an infinite regress, but don't think too hard about it; just believe me that it's okay. I know that not every infinite regress is okay, but I'm not going to justify this one. You should just assume it works.

The negative integers are an infinite regress. This shows that such is a logical possibility. There is no inherent contradiction in the concept.

Now, the question is whether such actually exists in the real world. Given that there is no logical contradiction in the concept, there needs to be an argument to show that such cannot happen in sequences of causes. Do you have an argument showing that?

If not, then you are making an *assumption* that such is impossible and that assumption is unnecessary.

And, in fact, pretty much every version of quantum gravity has such an infinite regression for time. So, it is not only an unnecessary assumption, it is likely to be a wrong assumption.

You should spend some time thinking about what properties have to be assumed to make infinite regress work and what properties of the universe can be applied to this idea. For example, you ought to consider the concept of continuity and ask yourself if the universe is in some sense continuous or not. There's lots for you to consider, but I won't make your argument for you. If you can't justify it... that's on you.

Well, an infinite amount of time into the past would allow for an infinite regress, whether time is quantized or not. Even for a finite past duration, the nature of the quantization would be relevant: it might still be possible to have an infinite sequence (quantization does not necessarily mean the natural numbers are the appropriate model).

Continuity is a different matter, relevant for times within the sequence, but not for the infinite regress itself.

One argument is not made invalid because someone introduces another argument which is incomplete. If he can't justify the infinite regress, then he hasn't done anything and possibly he has even hurt his case.

The infinite regress has no *logical* issues. Whether or not it can happen in the real world is the point in question. And, to claim it cannot requires some sort of argument.

As for (infinite) quantity of causes... there can be as many as you like. Even if he has an infinite causal chain, even if he were right that there were an infinite regress, he still hasn't shown his conclusion (with regards to the OP), just like you can have a infinite sequence where Achilles doesn't pass the tortoise... but in reality Achilles does pass the tortoise! His argument amounts to: I imagine that God is unnecessary.

I see you don't quite understand Zeno's paradoxes. In that infinite sequence where Achilles does not pass the tortoise, there is no *last* in that sequence. But the fact that both time and space have equal cardinality means that it is *possible* for Achilles to catch up with the tortoise. But, for this to happen, both the time sequence and the space sequence have to have a limit.

In the case of an infinite sequence into the past, no such limit need exist. And, in fact, the limit as x goes to negative infinity does not exist.

So, the issues of continuity (which are only relevant for actual times) are irrelevant when the limit simply does not exist.

If that's the extent of what he has to offer, then I don't need to say anything more.

Infinite limits are different than infinite cardinalities. There is no 'point at infinity'.

You seem to think you understand some of these matters involving continuity and cardinalities. But it is frankly clear you have a pretty elementary understanding of both. That's OK, there is the possibility of learning more. But don't try to say that someone who has been thinking about these things continuously for 40 years needs to brush up on them.

 

[night912]

One argument is not made invalid because someone introduces another argument which is incomplete. If he can't justify the infinite regress, then he hasn't done anything and possibly he has even hurt his case.

But it was complete. You keep claiming that it's not justified but still haven't shown anything as to why it's not.

As for (infinite) quantity of causes... there can be as many as you like. Even if he has an infinite causal chain, even if he were right that there were an infinite regress, he still hasn't shown his conclusion (with regards to the OP)

You keep repeating that but you haven't given an answer as to why. The conclusion is only one step away from what you've just said above. The conclusion would then be, that the ultimate cause is unnecessary and/or impossible and the reason why.

just like you can have a infinite sequence where Achilles doesn't pass the tortoise... but in reality Achilles does pass the tortoise! His argument amounts to: I imagine that God is unnecessary.

Actually, you were the one who did that for your objection against infinite regress. So far, you've only asserted that infinite regress doesn't work against an ultimate cause, and didn't provide the reason explaining as to why it does not work. And you have not addressed the argument, all you've done is provide strawman or irrelevant explanations.

 

[Milton Platt]

It is sometimes said that "God is an unnecessary hypothesis" -- meaning there are no cases or instances when one must resort to claiming god did it in order to explain anything about the nature of the physical universe.

Are you inclined to agree or to disagree with that notion?

So far, everything we have been able to explain has been shown to be due to natural forces and laws. There seems to be no reason to simply credit things we don't yet understand as being caused by a god, especially since after thousands of years of attempts, no one has been able to substantiate the existence of said god or gods.

 

[Ponder This]

But it was complete. You keep claiming that it's not justified but still haven't shown anything as to why it's not.


You keep repeating that but you haven't given an answer as to why. The conclusion is only one step away from what you've just said above. The conclusion would then be, that the ultimate cause is unnecessary and/or impossible and the reason why.


Actually, you were the one who did that for your objection against infinite regress. So far, you've only asserted that infinite regress doesn't work against an ultimate cause, and didn't provide the reason explaining as to why it does not work. And you have not addressed the argument, all you've done is provide strawman or irrelevant explanations.

He claims an infinite regress, but he has to do more than that.
Consider that Zeno's paradoxes illustrate how simply constructing an infinite regress is insufficient.
It's not enough and possibly he has even hurt his case.

As I pointed out an infinite regress can have causes beyond itself. So I don't have to object to the existence of an infinite regress at all. The burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that his infinite regress suffices. And if he doesn't do that, then he hasn't really done anything at all.

So, yeah, he didn't do enough. I can hardly be blamed for rejecting an argument that is incomplete. I understand why you might think he did enough, but he didn't.
What would satisfy me? Well, one obvious option would be to show that every cause is a member of his infinite regress. Another option would be for him to show that every cause has a cause contained in his infinite regress.
As it stands, he considers that his infinite regress cannot fit within the time needed for this universe alone. So he already has that his infinite regress extends beyond the existence of this universe - he hypothesizes infinitely many universes before this universe in order to accommodate his infinite regress. It seems that there is, in fact, very little that I have to do to make my point that there must be at least one transcendent cause to the universe.