The Proof from Contingency/Necessity: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[SaxonX]

Xavier 

... Just a pleasant Debate. No need for anyone to be offended. God Bless.

You're coming here a vomiting forth a torrent of apologetic bullshit is offensive, it's offence to intellectual honesty and the intelligence of everyone here. Arguing with apologist trolls is never pleasant dealing with one as dense as you are, especially so I'll give this to Huggy and Steve, at least I can take them semi seriously.

[polymath257]

Reltzik: Ok. You could never have arrived at the present moment by starting from t=-∞ (infinity). Please explain how, by successive addition of temporal moment to moment, or finite steps, you would get from -infinity to ANY finite number, let alone 0,1,2,3 today etc. I'll wait.

And the point is that there is no t=-infinity. There are only points on the real line (or integers).

However, the argument here does not even require that. It just requires that (1) every being in existence cannot be dependent on a prior being. (2) some being will have to be able to exist without dependence on a prior being (3) this being exists necessarily, not contingently.

Here's a Mathematical Form of the Contingency Argument:

(1) Let each contingently existing being consider himself Bn
(2) Then, because he exists contingently, he depends for his existence on a prior being Bn-1.
(3) Now, Bn-1 likewise, if it is contingent, depends on Bn-2.
(4) Nevertheless, this series cannot go on until Infinity.
(5) At a certain time, we will arrive at a B1, the First Being in existence, and
(6) since there is no "zeroth" Being or B0, B1 exists Necessarily, i.e. is not a contingent being, since He exists without dependence on a prior being (no B0).
(7) Therefore, B1, the First Being in existence, is the Necessarily Existent Being God.

This assumes that the collection of B's is indexed by positive integers, which, essentially, assumes the conclusion. if the B's are indexed by *all* integers, there is no 'first', so the argument fails. So, B(2) is dependent on B(1), which is dependent on B(0), which is dependent on B(-1), which is dependent on B(-2), which is dependent on B(-3), etc.

In essence, you are assuming the index set is well-ordered. But there are many linear orders that are not well orders. In particular, the claim #4 has not been demonstrated.

There is also the problem that you are assuming that something that is not contingent upon anything else is 1) unique and 2) has an intelligence and 3) is the deity you worship. NONE of these have been shown, nor do they have any evidence to back them up.

Danu:

"If every contingent being depends upon a prior being for its existence, then the first cause existed prior to the universe.

Agreed.

In order for the first cause to exist "prior" to the universe, it must exist in time.

 

Denied. The First Cause existed timelessly, i.e. eternally before the Universe, i.e. space time began.

To use the word 'before' already implies time. Without time, there is neither 'before' nor 'after'. In particular, if time has a start, then there is no 'before that start', which means that time itself is uncaused. On the other hand, if time does not have a start, it is either circular or infinite into the past. In both of those cases, time is also uncaused.

The conclusion is that time is, of necessity, uncaused. But that mean the  universe as a whole is uncaused because time is part of the universe.

If it existed temporally before the universe, then you have the problem of the first cause existing infinitely into the past which you have claimed can't happen. Premises one and two are in direct conflict. They can't both be true.

The argument was not that an actual infinite cannot exist, but that one cannot be formed by successive addition. God was not formed, for e.g. by the successive addition of finite power to finite power, or finite moment to finite moment. Christian Theism has never held that.

Successive addition *from what*? Nobody claims that an actual infinite past is obtained by successive addition *from nothing*. All addition is to an already infinite past.

Additionally, 4 doesn't follow from 1-3.

Please explain why. A necessarily existent being, unlike contingent beings, never began to exist, by definition of necessary existence. Therefore, it is eternal in the past. Again, a necessarily existent beings, unlike contingent beings (and the contingent universe, in the proposed Big Crunch), will never cease to exist, since that is incompatible with necessary existence. Therefore, it is eternal in both the past and the future. So which part of being Eternal are you claiming does not follow from being Necessary?

Sounds to me like 'time' is a good candidate for that 'Necessary Being'. Except, of course, that it has no intelligence. But that property was never shown in your argument anyway.

I would also point out that 'ceasing to exist' again presupposes time

.
Also, the argument is not "arguing" or "philosophizing" God into existence, anymore than one "philosophizes Gravity into existence". It is using a logical argument that demonstrates a Necessary First Being must exist just like Gravity must exist.

Just a pleasant Debate. No need for anyone to be offended. God Bless.

And your argument fails to demonstrate that a necessary object (being implies more than you have attempted to prove) exists. Even more, it fails to prove such is unique. It also fails to prove that such a thing isn't in time (many quantum events seem to be non-contingent in your sense).

I would also ask why you say that Gravity 'must exist'? Would you care the elaborate on that?