How does God escape the problem of infinite regression?

[Mort_Alz]

Modern philosophy and science seem to take it as a given that an infinite regression of causes cannot be the reality of the past regarding cosmology and the beginning of the universe. When pressed for reasons, scientists will defer you to the evidence for the Big Bang and philosophers will tell you that an infinite regression of causes into the past would’ve made it impossible for you and I to exist since “time” would be flowing infinitely towards the beginning from infinity in the past. In other words, the beginning would never be arrived at.

I used to dismiss the New Atheist quip of “Who/What caused God?” because I thought they asked it out of ignorance regarding theology since God, by definition, is causeless. However, it was brought to my attention, recently, that the problem of infinite regression is not actually solved by introducing God into the library of possible explanations. God extends infinitely into the past, so how would He ever “arrive” at the time when he started “the beginning?”

I’m probably not articulating my question very well. Hopefully clarifications will come in due time.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Here’s an accompanying and appropriate article articulating the problem perhaps a little better than me and it anticipates an objection.

answers-in-reason.com/religion/god-infinite-regress/

I particularly like this:

Well the first problem comes with the claim that God is ‘infinite’, or has no beginning. If we work backwards from the beginning of our universe we are left with the same problem as the soldier waiting to fire. We are left with an ‘infinite regress’ of God actively choosing not to create the universe. We are left with an infinite amount of time existing before God actively chose to create the universe.

As a well-articulated expression of the problem.

It also anticipates the “answer” that God is outside of time. I tend to agree with the author of the quoted article that this isn’t really an answer. It’s at least not an answer satisfactory enough to allow us to say we are not guilty of a double standard when saying it is philosophically impossible for us to exist because of an infinite regression of causes. (Turtles all the way down).

 

[Bradski]

I think the answer lies in the claim that God is atemporal. That is, there is no beginning or end as far as He is concerned.

Just like people claim that there was no time before the Big Bang. Which is not strictly true. It’s just that if there was, we can’t access it. So for all intents and purposes…

 

[tm21]

The argument against God as stated is based on a false assumption: that before creation of the universe, God existed in time. There was no time before God created the universe, therefore no infinite regression. One of the attributes of God is that he is immutable…without change. He stands outside of time, which he in fact created.

 

[57classic]

The argument against God as stated is based on a false assumption: that before creation of the universe, God existed in time. There was no time before God created the universe, therefore no infinite regression. One of the attributes of God is that he is immutable…without change. He stands outside of time, which he in fact created.

We are getting too big for our britches thinking that we can get to the bottom of everything, there are things that are too big for human beings to understand. It’s a Mystery, let it go.
I for one, am glad our God is too big for me to understand, otherwise He would be as the Greek gods who exhibited all the flaws of human beings and were totally understandable.

 

[Jomann]

Omnipotency.

That’s why the first cause must be omnipotent.

 

[davidv]

Modern philosophy and science seem to take it as a given that an infinite regression of causes cannot be the reality of the past regarding cosmology and the beginning of the universe. When pressed for reasons, scientists will defer you to the evidence for the Big Bang and philosophers will tell you that an infinite regression of causes into the past would’ve made it impossible for you and I to exist since “time” would be flowing infinitely towards the beginning from infinity in the past. In other words, the beginning would never be arrived at.

I used to dismiss the New Atheist quip of “Who/What caused God?” because I thought they asked it out of ignorance regarding theology since God, by definition, is causeless. However, it was brought to my attention, recently, that the problem of infinite regression is not actually solved by introducing God into the library of possible explanations. ** God extends infinitely into the past, so how would He ever “arrive” at the time when he started “the beginning?”
**
I’m probably not articulating my question very well. Hopefully clarifications will come in due time.

I believe that statement is bold is false because it implies that God is constrained by time… God is eternal and unconstrained.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I think the answer lies in the claim that God is atemporal. That is, there is no beginning or end as far as He is concerned.

Just like people claim that there was no time before the Big Bang. Which is not strictly true. It’s just that if there was, we can’t access it. So for all intents and purposes…

I guess that would solve it. But, even though it seems it must be admitted that there has to be an uncaused cause, a first mover, something to get the ball rolling, atheists object only to the notion that a thing with those properties (uncaused cause, etc.) must necessarily be like God. Is this accurate?

 

[STT]

I guess that would solve it. But, even though it seems it must be admitted that there has to be an uncaused cause, a first mover, something to get the ball rolling, atheists object only to the notion that a thing with those properties (uncaused cause, etc.) must necessarily be like God. Is this accurate?

Apparently there is no rolling ball either. Think of it like this: We refer to nothing as a state of existence, lack of being, prior to beginning (creation or Big Bang point). There is however no point before beginning because there is nothing before hence nothing cannot exist. This means that the universe has a beginning without any need to come from non-existence/nothing into existence/something. I have a thread on this topic on here. I would be happy to discuss the idea with you here or there.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Apparently there is no rolling ball either. Think of it like this: We refer to nothing as a state of existence, lack of being, prior to beginning (creation or Big Bang point). There is however no point before beginning because there is nothing before hence nothing cannot exist. This means that the universe has a beginning without any need to come from non-existence/nothing into existence/something. I have a thread on this topic on here. I would be happy to discuss the idea with you here or there.

I’m not being dismissive here, but inviting a response: that makes about as much sense as the ontological argument for God’s existence.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything. Both these answers defy logic and reason, but we are here, so one of those answers must be correct.

Would you say an infinite regression of causes, is the same as something not having a beginning?

 

[Mort_Alz]

Something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything. Both these answers defy logic and reason, but we are here, so one of those answers must be correct.

Would you say an infinite regression of causes, is the same as something not having a beginning?

Yes.

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s an accompanying and appropriate article articulating the problem perhaps a little better than me and it anticipates an objection.

answers-in-reason.com/religion/god-infinite-regress/

I particularly like this:

As a well-articulated expression of the problem.

It also anticipates the “answer” that God is outside of time. I tend to agree with the author of the quoted article that this isn’t really an answer. It’s at least not an answer satisfactory enough to allow us to say we are not guilty of a double standard when saying it is philosophically impossible for us to exist because of an infinite regression of causes. (Turtles all the way down).

1. Time doesn’t exist without physical objects.
2. The creation of the physical universe entails the creation of time and space.
3. There is no evidence that only the physical universe exists.
4. Our primary datum and sole certainty is not the physical universe but our mental activity which enables us to infer the existence of the physical universe from our perceptions.
5. It is therefore far more likely that there is a Supreme Mind which transcends the physical universe without being subject to an infinite regression of physical causes.

As Pascal pointed out, the universe doesn’t know it exists whereas we know the universe exists. This is an incredible achievement in the vastness of time and space for such minute beings - and irrefutable evidence of the power of the mind (without which we wouldn’t even be having this discussion).

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not being dismissive here, but inviting a response: that makes about as much sense as the ontological argument for God’s existence.

I’m not too sure that anything makes about as much sense as the ontological argument.

 

[tm21]

We are getting too big for our britches thinking that we can get to the bottom of everything, there are things that are too big for human beings to understand. It’s a Mystery, let it go.
I for one, am glad our God is too big for me to understand, otherwise He would be as the Greek gods who exhibited all the flaws of human beings and were totally understandable.

You are right that God is too big for us to fully understand. However there are certain things we can know about God by the light of reason and even more by the light of divine revelation. For example, by revelation we know that God is love (1 John 4:8). From human reason, man can come to know from viewing the world’s order and beauty, and starting with movement, becoming, and contingency, that God is the origin and the end of the universe (CCC #32). Also, although we cannot grasp fully what God is, we can state what he is not. (CCC #43). We know from divine revelation that God is not changing and is not created…that he is the eternal “I Am”.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I’m not too sure that anything makes about as much sense as the ontological argument.

Ok. I have to bite. ANY perfect thing would have to possess the attribute of existing in order to be perfect. It does not follow, then, that they all exist.

 

[tonyrey]

Ok. I have to bite. ANY perfect thing would have to possess the attribute of existing in order to be perfect. It does not follow, then, that they all exist.

There is only one Being who is perfect in every respect.(Occam’s Razor disposes of all the others.) To postulate more than one not only violates the principle of economy but also intelligibility. How are the absolutely perfect Beings related?
Plurality raises unnecessary problems.

 

[tonyrey]

You are right that God is too big for us to fully understand. However there are certain things we can know about God by the light of reason and even more by the light of divine revelation. For example, by revelation we know that God is love (1 John 4:8). From human reason, man can come to know from viewing the world’s order and beauty, and starting with movement, becoming, and contingency, that God is the origin and the end of the universe (CCC #32). Also, although we cannot grasp fully what God is, we can state what he is not. (CCC #43). We know from divine revelation that God is not changing and is not created…that he is the eternal “I Am”.

Very often we overlook the most fundamental truths precisely because they are so fundamental. The pre-Socratic philosophers tried to solve the mystery of the Many and the One with the monism of Parmenides and the pluralism of Democritus. Yet although existence is the most fundamental fact of all it is not the most significant because by itself it would be valueless, purposeless and meaningless. The truth is found between the two extremes of unity and diversity . Individuals are no longer isolated but fulfilled when they have a common purpose, exist for one another and are united by unselfish love like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their love is not an infinite regression because it is creative, eternal and indestructible, i.e. an infinite progression!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Modern philosophy and science seem to take it as a given that an infinite regression of causes cannot be the reality of the past regarding cosmology and the beginning of the universe. When pressed for reasons, scientists will defer you to the evidence for the Big Bang and philosophers will tell you that an infinite regression of causes into the past would’ve made it impossible for you and I to exist since “time” would be flowing infinitely towards the beginning from infinity in the past. In other words, the beginning would never be arrived at.

I used to dismiss the New Atheist quip of “Who/What caused God?” because I thought they asked it out of ignorance regarding theology since God, by definition, is causeless. However, it was brought to my attention, recently, that the problem of infinite regression is not actually solved by introducing God into the library of possible explanations. God extends infinitely into the past, so how would He ever “arrive” at the time when he started “the beginning?”

I’m probably not articulating my question very well. Hopefully clarifications will come in due time.

Infinite regression does not apply to God for whom there is no “past” as we experience the passage of time. God is a necessary being who exists outside of time and space. Start here:

youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I

And here:

reasonablefaith.org/infinite-regress-and-the-leibnizian-cosmological-argument

 

[tonyrey]

Infinite regression does not apply to God for whom there is no “past” as we experience the passage of time. God is a necessary being who exists outside of time and space. Start here:

youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I

And here:

reasonablefaith.org/infinite-regress-and-the-leibnizian-cosmological-argument

Strange as it may seem, there is also no future for God! How can Our Lord be perfectly fulfilled when in spite of suffering and dying for everyone some of us choose to reject His love for all eternity? Evil will be an eternal, immutable and indestructible element of reality. It may seem a fatal flaw in the concept of infinite progression but it isn’t because God wouldn’t be perfect if He didn’t share His independence with us. Strangely enough, evil is the supreme proof of His unselfish love which sacrifices His omnipotence so that we too are capable of unselfish love and accept evil as the price of our freedom…