Debunking Atheist Contention: Infinite Regress Is Possible

Debunking Atheist Contention: Infinite Regress Is Possible!

 

 
"Understanding The Context"

As has been highlighted in the argument;

Premise A: We exist here today.

Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)

If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
Those who claim that the world has no beginning are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.
 What is being said here, we can observe the current moment in time, and that there have been moments of time that have existed before the current moment, then it is rationally impossible i.e. rationally absurd, that these moments of time stretch back to an infinite number. It is rationally necessary for time to have had a beginning.

Let's focus on the two claims given below:
1) Infinite Regress is Possible.
2) Infinite Regress is not Possible (impossible).

The Kalam Cosmological arguments proves beyond reasonable doubt, that claiming "infinite regress is possible" is a rational absurdity.

However, if an atheist deems "Infinite Regress" to be possible, then he must admit that the series of events leading upto the present moment are "Infinite and Real events."
What do we mean by "infinite" in the context of Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Infinite means: Without a beginning and without an end. If infinite regress is possible, the number of real-events prior to the present moment are without a beginning.
What do we mean by "finite" in the context of Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Finite means: With a beginning and an end.

What do we mean by "Real events" in the context of Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Since we pass through time, the events of past are "Real" events. They are not "imaginary" or "speculative".
Someone who holds "infinite regress" to be possible, then by rational necessity must also admit that these events of the past (without a beginning) leading up to the present moment are "Real."
Keeping this context in mind, let move forwards:

Atheist:

It could as easily be infinite regression or many things with no beginning.

Reply:

If you believe in the possibility of infinite regress you are denying your own existence and the existence of everything around you. Do you know that?

Atheist:

“That’s laughably incorrect.”

Reply:

Define infinite regress.
Define infinity.

Atheist:

I make no claims. You’re doing that. I’m pointing out alternatives. Which is all it takes to debunk your argument.

Reply:

Why are you resorting to sophistry? Since you know what infinite regress is, that’s why you disproved my claim as incorrect. I asked you to define infinite regress, so define it?

Atheist:

I’m pointing out alternatives. Which is all it takes to debunk your argument.

Reply:

Does entertaining absurdies or resorting to sophistry debunk anything? Wake up please.

Atheist:

I wasn’t the one to introduce the term infinite regress so defining it isn’t my responsibility.

_________________________________________________________

While discussing on another topic pertaining to "change" being "intrinsically impossible" for the Creator,on the same day, a topic on infinite series of events was brought up.

Atheist:

You don’t understand infinity, do you? Infinity is a math concept. If you take any line segment, no matter how short, it has an infinite number of points contained in it. But, it obviously has two ends. If you start timing right now and continue forever, that bit of infinity has one end. If you have a period of time that lasts one hour, it has an infinite amount of moments in it (moments defined as any passage of time, no matter how short).

Reply:

Funny. Is the distance between 0 and 1 (end)points an infinite distance? No. Sure, you can imaginarily assume mathematically that the fractions between them are infinite, but these fractions are not real, they are imaginary and do not exist in the outside world. If you were to divide then in a series 1/2, 1/4. 1/8, etc. this is imagined as an infinite string, but these fractions do not exist, nor does the series. It is an imaginary exercise. In my argument I am speaking of real events.

Let me give you a simpler example so that you can wrap your mind around this.

In mathematics, we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls”.

Do -3 number of balls have any real existence in the real world?

Atheist:

You still don’t get infinity do you? The distance between zero and one? Really? Zero and one, like everything else in math, are descriptors. Without something to describe, they don’t exist in the real world at all. So, answer it yourself, what exactly is the distance between two things that don’t exist? Actually a decent example of infinity since you cannot exclude anything from the set.

Reply:

"You still don’t get infinity do you?"

You seem to get it:
 Is infinity:
1) without a beginning or end?
Or
2)with a beginning but no end?

Unless you define it, we will not have any discussions on infinity.

"The distance between zero and one? Really? Zero and one, like everything else in math, are descriptors."Leave the numbers aside, and focus on the definitons given above. Unless you define infinity and stick to that definition, this is going no where. You brought the infinite points on a finite line argument, I didn’t. We will see how it stands tall in front of “Real past events” that have completed.

Atheist:

I’ve already answered that.
“You don’t understand infinity, do you? Infinity is a math concept. If you take any line segment, no matter how short, it has an infinite number of points contained in it. But, it obviously has two ends. If you start timing right now and continue forever, that bit of infinity has one end. If you have a period of time that lasts one hour, it has an infinite amount of moments in it (moments defined as any passage of time, no matter how short). ”

Reply:

 “Infinity is a math concept. If you take any line segment, no matter how short, it has an infinite number of points contained in it."

Q) Can these infinite number of points be counted one after another until one reaches the end?

Atheist:

 Of course not. Yet the area they exist in is indeed constrained by the ends.

Reply:

 "Of course not".
Very good!

Q2) Can an “infinite distance” be traversed i.e. a person reaches the end of it?

Atheist:

 I can show mathematically that your theoretical person can indeed traverse the entire length of an infinitely long line if he has an infinite amount of time to do it in.

Reply:

This is not the the point!
The question is can this occur? Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur. Can an infinite amount of time ever be concluded (reached) or come to an end?

Atheist:

Yes, as I pointed out several times, an infinite amount of time can still end. You not comprehending this is your limitation, not mine.

Reply:

He states “an infinite amount of time can still end”When asked“Can these infinite number of points be counted one after another until one reaches the end?” "Of course not".

 Violation of Law of contradiction:
1) Infinity can end.
2) Infinity cannot end.
Holding (1) and (2) to be true at the same time is a violation of law of contradiction.
And you hold both of these to be true.

Something can be claimed to be:

1) Finite (with a beginning and an end)
2) not finite. (without a beginning and end). (Actual infinite)

Holding (1) and (2) to be true at the same time is a violation of law of contradiction

Something can be claimed to be:


1)Finite (with a beginning and an end).

2)Not finite  (with a beginning but no end). (Potential infinite)

Holding (1) and (2) to be true at the same time is a violation of law of contradiction.

And you hold both (1) and (2) to be true at the same time.

Moreover

1) If finity is defined as “something with a beginning and an end”.

2)and infinity is defined as “something with a beginning and end”

Then infinity=finite ,

and that is a violation of law of contradiction again.

How can “finite” be equal to “not finite”?

This is what happens when someone doesnot respect the law of contradiction. He contradicts himself and causes confusion for others.

Moving on,

He states “Covering an infinite distance will take an infinite amount of time”

“Infinite amount of time can come to an end”

Then he states “If you have a period of time that lasts one hour, it has an infinite amount of moments in it”

1) 1 hour = infinite amounts of moments.

2)And an infinite distance could be traversed in an infinite amount of time.

3) Counting infinite number of points one after another would take infinite amount of time as well.

4) So count those infinite number of points one after another in 1 hour.

Oh wait:

Why not in 1 second?

Since 1 second is also composed of= infinite amount of moments.

And 1 hour is also composed of= infinite amount of moments.

Therefore by rational necessity 1 hour= 1 second.

In other words 3600 seconds=1 second?

Right?

This is what happens when you don’t respect logical principles. I warned you not to bring your mathematical halves into the realm of real events.

He thinks infinite series of past REAL events can be concluded based on traversing a finite distance (which can be imaginarily divided into infinite number of points).

Atheist:

Quoting himself “an infinite amount of time can still end”

Really? After I pointed out that if something has a beginning and continues forever, the beginning is still an end, you still don’t comprehend that?

This is the result of you just not understanding the mathematical concept of infinity. As I explained before, The shortest possible line segment has an infinite number of points. You cannot count infinity by definition. That obviously doesn’t mean it has no end. It ends in this case at each end of the line.

I never said infinity cannot end. I said it cannot be counted. The contradiction exists only in your ignorance.

Moving on,
He states “Covering an infinite distance will take an infinite amount of time”
“Infinite amount of time can come to an end”

Then he states “If you have a period of time that lasts one hour, it has an infinite amount of moments in it”

1) 1 hour = infinite amounts of moments.
2)And an infinite distance could be traversed in an infinite amount of time.
3) Counting infinite number of points one after another would take infinite amount of time as well.
4) So count those infinite number of points one after another in 1 hour.

Oh wait:
Why not in 1 second?

Since 1 second is also composed of= infinite amount of moments.
And 1 hour is also composed of= infinite amount of moments.
Therefore by rational necessity 1 hour= 1 second.
In other words 3600 seconds=1 second?
Right?

Of course not. As I have stated before, your ignorance is your only argument.

1. Any segment has an infinite amount of points. Surely you understand that by now. If not, I advise you remedial math.
2. By your “logic”. That means that an inch equals a mile. Number of points (each infinitely small) isn’t the only measurement kid.
3. While they are equal in points, they are not equal in microns or millimeters or any actual length measurement. You’re trying to equate numbers of points (a non measurement) with actual measurement. It doesn’t work that way.

"This is what happens when you don’t respect logical principles. I warned you not to bring your mathematical halves into the realm of real events."

You’re the one bringing a mathematical concept (infinity) into an argument about the real world. Practice what you preach.

My answer was “I can show mathematically that your theoretical person can indeed traverse the entire length of an infinitely long line if he has an infinite amount of time to do it in.”

To which you amusingly replied:

This is not the the point!

The question is can this occur? Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur. Can an infinite amount of time ever be concluded (reached) or come to an end?

You’re actually right for a change. But, not for the reason you think of course. While any line segment has an infinite amount of points, there is no such thing as an infinitely long line. So, if we are talking just math, your question and my answer are valid. If we are talking reality (again, it’s YOU that are interjecting a math concept into reality) then your premise is what is preventing it from being valid.

Reply:

It's time to go back to the original context:

Q1)Can these infinite number of points be counted one after another until one reaches the end?

Atheist: Ofcourse Not.
Q2) Can an “infinite distance” be traversed i.e. a person reaches the end of it?

Atheist: I can show mathematically that your theoretical person can indeed traverse the entire length of an infinitely long line if he has an infinite amount of time to do it in.

Q3) Can an infinite amount of time ever be concluded (reached) or come to an end?
Atheist: “an infinite amount of time can still end.”


Atheist: "Really? After I pointed out that if something has a beginning and continues forever, the beginning is still an end, you still don’t comprehend that?"


The original question was:

Can an infinite amount of time ever be concluded (reached) or come to an end?

Atheist states “an infinite amount of time can still end.”

1)If the beginning of time is its end, and this continues forever then by rational necessity time is non-existent.
2) If someone claims "something has a beginning and continues forever" and then states "The beginning is still an end",
Let's illustrate this by way of example:
Imagine hypothetically someone Begins a journey from his home. And he covers a distance of 1 km which traces back to his home (End). Let's call this journey one cycle.Imagine that he started today at 7/22/2019 and continues "forever"

Assuming: 1f 1 km is covered in 1 hour, then in a period of 24 hours (day), the distance covered comes out to be 24 km. In 365 days (1 year) it comes out to be 24x365days= 8760 km.Number of cycles in a day are :24.
Number of cycles in a year: 24x365days=8760 cycles
What will be the distance covered after a period of 100 years? 876000 km.
Is it a finite distance? Ofcourse it is.
What will be distance covered after a period of 1000 years? 8760000 km.
Is it a finite distance? Ofcourse it is.
What will be the number of cycles after a period of 100 years? 876000 cycles.
Is the number of cycles finite? Ofcourse it is.
What will be the number of cycles after a period of 1000 years? 8760000 cycles.

No matter how many years you add, at any point in time in the future, the distance will remain finite because the journey itself began at a certain time.
No matter how many years you add, at any point in time in the future, the number of cycles will also remain finite.
Then what is infinite, then?
The cycles will continue forever without coming to an end.(Potential infinite)

One can't say "a cycle" is infinite. One can't say "the total number of cycles" at any point in time in the future are infinite. Because at any point in time in the future, they would still be finite.

There's nothing absurd about this (temporal infinity) from a logical point of view because:
This issue is not a problem for the future, because no one in their right mind claims that they have been completed (came to an end). In fact, it is in the future, because it has not completed.When you say that the past has infinitely many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past. (This is what the Kalam Cosmological Argument deals with). We will come to this later.


What is this "forever" that you talk about when you say "That obviously doesn’t mean it has no end."?
If this forvever has an end, then how is it forever in the first place?

Only someone who has no respect for "logical principles such as Law of contradictions)" can make such an absurd claim.
If  someone states the cycles will not continue forever, then he violates the law of contradiction:

1) Cycles will continue forever.
2) Cycles will not continue forever.

Holding (1) and (2) to be true, is a violation of law of contradiction.

If he holds (1) to be false and (2) be true, then why did he state "continues forever" in the first place?


If,however, someone claims since these cycles continue forever (infinite), and each individual cycle has a beginning and end (finite) and this proves that infinity comes to an end commits a Non sequitur fallacy (It doesnot follow):

This can be illustrated as follows:

1) The cycles continue forever (potentially infinite) (He holds this to be true)
2) The cycles do not continue forever. (finite)

1)A cycle is finite. (He holds this to be true)
2)A cycle is infinite (not finite).

Then he states:
1) The cycles continue forever (infinite).
2) A cyles is finite.
3)Since the cycles continue forever and each individual cycle has a beginning and an end, and therefore infinity comes to an end. (This is a non-sequitur fallacy. It doesnot logically follow).

This is because:
The only way someone can conclude "infinity came to an end" is:

If he holds the following to be true:
1)The cycles do not continue forever (finite).

If he holds "the cycles donot continue forever" to be true, then he has violated law of contradiction because he also holds "The cycles continue forever (potentially infinite)" to be true.
The shortest possible line segment has an infinite number of points. You cannot count infinity by definition. That obviously doesn’t mean it has no end. It ends in this case at each end of the line.
Notice the play of words.
You cannot count infinity by definition. That obviously doesn’t mean it has no end. It ends in this case at each end of the line.
First he states "infinite number of points".
Fair enough.
Then he states "You cannot count infinity by definition"

I asked him before as well "Can these infinite number of points be counted one after another until one reaches the end?"
He said "of course not"Then he states "You cannot count infinity by definition."
The question is "Why?"

Is it because these infinite number of points do not have an end? Another way to put this question is "Can a person start counting these infinite points today and continues to do so forever, in the future, without reaching the end i.e. there will always be a number remaining behind to count?

Is the reason for the the fact that you cannot count infinity, an Intrinsic Impossibility?
If your answer is: Yes, there will always be a number remaining behind to count.

Then you have just committed violation of law of contradiction.

Something is deemed to be:
1) Finite.
That obviously doesn’t mean it has no end.

2)Infinite (Not finite).

Yes, there will always be a number remaining behind to count.Holding (1) and (2) to be true at the same time is a violation of law of contradiction.

If your answer is: No,  there will come a point, when no number is left behind to count. This means the end of numbers or counting has been reached.
Then you have just committed violation of law of contradiction, Again!.
Something is deemed:

1) Finite.
No,  there will come a point, when no number is left behind to count. This means the end of numbers or counting has been reached.
Since no number is left behind to count,then by rational necessity the total number of points will be either an odd number or an even number i.e. finite.

2) Infinite (Not finite).
"You cannot count infinity by definiton"The shortest possible line segment has an infinite number of points".

Holding (1) and (2) to be true at the same time is a violation of law of contradiction.
Is the reason for the fact that you cannot count infinity a practical impossiblity?

If you meant by "You cannot count infinity by definition", because it will take a lot of time to reach the end, then it is by definiton finite. The only hurdle in the way is the limitation of time. Since the numbers have an end, then by rational necessity it will be either an odd number and an even number.

And this means, you have just committed violation of law of contradiction:
1)Number of points are finite.
"You cannot count infinity by definition", because it will take a lot of time to reach the end.
2)Number of points are not finite (infinite).
The shortest possible line segment has an infinite number of points.

Holding (1) and (2) to be true is a violation of law of contradiction.

How can the number of points be finite and not finite at the same time?

If, however, someone claims, a finite line segment has infinite number of points in a line segment and infinity ends at each end of the segment, then he has committed

Non sequitur fallacy (It doesnot follow).

1) There are infinite number of points in a line segment. (You hold this to be true).
2) There are finite (not infinite) number of points in a line segment.

1) The line segment is finite. (You hold this to be true).
2) The line segment is infinite (not finite).

1) There are infinite number of points in a line segment.
2)The line segment is finite. (You hold this to be true).
3) Therefore, infinity ends at each end of the segment. (This is a non-sequitur fallacy. It doesnot logically follow).

This is because:
The only way someone can conclude infinity comes to an end is:If he holds the following to be true:
1) There are finite (not infinite) number of points in a line segment.

If someone holds "there are finite (not infinite) number of points in a line segment" to be true, then he has violated the law of contradiction because he also holds "There are infinite number of points in a line segment" to be true as well.

Claiming "infinity ends at each end of the segment" is a side-track and sophistry at best. What was deemed infinite? The line segment or the number of points? The number of points were deemed infinite by the atheist. And he uses the beginning and end of a finite line segment as a proof, that "infinity" comes to an end.
When he has to demonstrate is whether "the infinite number of points have an end* or not?

And this he cannot do, without "violating" law of contradiction.

*by end we mean "when no number is left behind to count. This means the end of numbers or counting has been reached.
Since no number is left behind to count,then by rational necessity the number of points will be either an odd number or an even number i.e. finite".
You might be wondering how is all of this relevant to the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

It isn't. It was a deceptive side-track built by an atheist. It was he, who brought mathematical halves (mental abstractions) into the realm of the real world. He cannot escape from it without resorting to sophistry or violating logical principles.
The atheist can either claim the series of events of the past are either:
1)Without a beginning.
2)With a beginning.
He holds (1) to be true.

Defining terms:
Infinity: “Something without a beginning or end” (This is what the argument in question deals with).
Definition of potential infinity: Something with a beginning but no end.

Atheist's definiton: Something with a beginning and an end.

Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. Because by definition infinite series of past events cannot be concluded (it doesnot end). (This is what the argument is postulating). If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. A violation of law of contradiction. Claiming that infinite series of events came to an end means "Infinite series of events one after another came to an end or came to completion", and this is absurd because "Infinity cannot end or cannot come to completion".

Conclusion or coming to completion (reaching the end) is what is deemed as impossible, if the series of past events are deemed without a beginning.
When you say that the past has infinitely (without a beginning or end) many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past.

My question to the Atheist “Do you believe the number of past events prior to the present moment are infinite (based on the definition "without a beginning").

If your answer is: No. They are not infinite, based on the definition of infinity (without beginning). They are FINITE.

Then what is all the argument about? You hold the same position as i do. (same goes for the argument as well).Then focus on the rest of the argument instead of building side-tracks.
If your answer is : Yes. They are infinite based on definition of infinity (without beginning and end).

Then it is a rational absurdity, because what is without a beginning has no end. And what that entails is that infinity cannot ever be concluded or completed. We are talking about events of the past not some events in the future. It is rational necessity to claim that the past is "gone", "completed" or it has been reached. If you deem the past events to be infinite, then by definition (without a beginning or end) infinity doesnot end (cannot be reached or concluded) and what that means is the past can never be claimed to be "gone" or "completed" and what that entails is the present moment will never arrive.

Atheist's definition of infinity: Something with a beginning and an end.
My question to Atheist “Do you believe the “number of past events” prior to the present moment are infinite. By infinite i mean (with a beginning and an end based on your definition) .

If your answer is: Yes they are infinite (with a beginning and an end).

Then what is all the argument about? You hold the same position as i do. (same goes for the argument as well).

The only difference is with defining terms (Semantics). What we call infinite, you deem it to be finite. It is time for you to focus on the argument presented above, instead of building side-stracks and straw-man.

If your answer is: Yes they are infinite based on the definition of infinity (with a beginning and no end). (Potential infinite)

Then i say based on the definition of infinity (with a beginning but no end), this is absurd from two point of views:

Absurdity # 1) Since it has a beginning then the first unit in the infinite loop (remember these are real events ) too must require a cause. If it doesn’t, it leads to the absurdity termed preponderance without a preferrer. And if it does require a cause and if the cause is contingent, it too must require a cause ad-infinitum.

Absurdity #2)
. These are past events leading up to the present moment. They exist prior to the present moment (i.e. in the past) and not after it,
Therefore by rational necessity if the events before the present moment are deemed “infinite” then between the first unit in the infinite loop and the the present moment, there would be unlimited events. Since they are unlimited, these infinite (potential) events cannot be concluded or reached and what that entails is, the present moment will never arrive.

Moreover, claiming that events are potentially infinite (continue forever), is not contradictory in itself. What is contradictory is when you hold "Past" events to be potential infinite. Because at any point in time (the present moment or the future), the number of past events must be "finite" even if you hold "events" to be potentially infinite. You cannot hold past events to be "potentially" infinite.
What this proves, is that once you hold past real events to be infnite ( potentially infinite; with a beginning but no end) or Actual Infinite ( Without a beginning) then you cannot say "It comes to an end."
Claiming that infinite series of past events are "potentially infinite" and then they came to an end is a contradiction of terms.
Coming to an end, is a rational necessity because the present moment has indeed arrived.
Therefore:
1) Saying Infinite series of past events were concluded leads to contradiction of terms.
2) Saying infinite series of past events were not concluded, mandates the present moment has not arrived. And this is absurd. Moreover an occurance of any past event, mandates that infinite series of past events prior to it MUST be concluded. And therefore the entire infinite series remain restricted to ones imagination.
3) By rational necessity, the series of past events MUST be finite and what that entails is they MUST have a beginning.

Last, but not the least an atheist will throw in a few questions in hopes of refuting our argument:Questions

1)Can God terminate infinity (without a beginning or end)?

We say His (Eternal) Power is a necessary attributes of His. It does not pertain to "rational absurdities" or "Intrinsic impossibilities".
By rational absurdities or intrinsic impossibilites we mean questions such as these:
1) Can God create a stone so big that He is unable to Lift?
2) Can God terminate His own existence?
3) Can God create a square circle?
4)Can God become a man?
5) Can God change?

Can God insert absurd propositions here?

2)The atheist asks "Doesn't that mean You are "restricting" God or "His" Power?"
The propositions highlighted above are rational absurdities or intrinsic impossibilies. This is not a question of His Power which is an Eternal (necessary existent) Attribute of His.
3) If an actual infinite "cannot" exist then How come God is infinite or His Attributes are infinite. Aren't making an special "exception" without justification?The answer is that infinity is not impossible in absolute terms. Actually, quite the contrary. What is impossible is to have an infinite amount of beginnings passing/ending/completing/finishing, because it is self contradictory.
In other what is impossible is for a series of infinite changes to end (Beginningless Series of events occuring one after another. Each occurance of an event would mandate completion of infinite series of events prior to it and this is intrinscially impossible because it is a contradiction of terms.
Aļļaah’s existence is infinite, because it does not have a beginning or end, so there is no contradiction here. All that is being said is that His existence is infinite and that His attributes are also infinite. This is not contradictory, since Allah does not change (it is a rational absurdity based on logical and deductive arguments), so this does not apply to Him. Allah’s existence does not consist of events and therefore there is no problem with saying that Allah is infinite.