Why is infinite regression held to be impossible?

[danserr]

An infinite number of things wouldn’t have to exist simultaneously. An infinite number of things might have existed though. An infinite regress is a property of an infinite timeline and so is the historical existence of an infinite number of objects. There is no reason for an infinite number of things to exist at any given point in time though.

My main point was regarding God’s infinity, that the problems with an actually existing number of things wouldn’t apply to God.

Technically, you may be right about an infinite number of things not having to exist (at least on this specific argument), but it doesn’t help, because the number of past events would still be actually infinite. Hence the absurdities wouldn’t disapear. The number of odd events would still be the same as the total number of events. And subtracting the number of odd events from the total number of events would yield a different result from subtracting all but the last 3 past events from the total number of events. In this case, we subtract infinity from infinity and get different numbers. Hence the absurdities of an infinite past remain.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

My main point was regarding God’s infinity, that the problems with an actually existing number of things wouldn’t apply to God.

Technically, you may be right about an infinite number of things not having to exist (at least on this specific argument), but it doesn’t help, because the number of past events would still be actually infinite. Hence the absurdities wouldn’t disapear. The number of odd events would still be the same as the total number of events. And subtracting the number of odd events from the total number of events would yield a different result from subtracting all but the last 3 past events from the total number of events. In this case, we subtract infinity from infinity and get different numbers. Hence the absurdities of an infinite past remain.

That you may find the consequences of an infinite past “absurd” is not a very strong argument. It is true that the properties of an infinite regression are complex and counter-intuitive, but neither of those factors is sufficient to render its existence impossible.
I would point out that the infinite regression hypothesis is dismissed out of hand in the course of the prime mover argument. I have not seen any argument yet that is sufficiently convincing to allow such a sweeping and immediate dismissal. To accomplish this, we would have to find some aspect of an infinite regression that is logically self-contradictory or implies that something we actually observe is impossible. Your point about subtraction is an attempt at this, but I see no reason why a rule that is applicable to a finite subset (i.e. removing the odd numbers results in a smaller set) should apply to the infinite whole.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TTC:

Are you sure you want to say that? Are you really, really sure? If a thing cannot be actualized, it cannot, per definitionem, EVER exist. Period. Only a thing that is actualizable can possibly exist - even if it doesn’t exist at this present moment.

No, I absolutely would not agree with something like that!

Then what actualized God? After all, you are claiming that it is possible to make God actual. If you claim he was not actualized, but still exists, then his actualizability has no bearing on whether or not he exists.

That may - allow me to repeat: MAY be true. But, the odds against it being true are astronomical.

Even people who understand the odds in the lottery don’t rule out the possibility of winning in the same way that an infinite regression is ruled out in the prime-mover argument.

Absurd. The substance of God is either spiritual substance, or continuous space. If it is either, it is actually infinite by virtue of logic and science. The axiom is, no lesser being can create a greater being. So, the worst case scenario is that God is potentially infinite, since everyone admits that He is creating the potentially infinite.

You’re ignoring my point. The idea was raised that an actual infinity can’t exist because nothing could extend beyond it to measure it. I claimed we cannot measure God. Therefore, if an inability to measure something is proof that it does not exist, then we must reject the God hypothesis.

Not so. I treat it as through it has an end - which is the here and Now. A thing is not infinite if it has any bounds. Eternal, maybe, but not infinite! If you think that it does, then you confirm that it is you that truly has no idea of what infinity is.

No. Your counting example was deficient. Here is the correct counting setup:
I will set out to count the seconds that have passed, starting with the present and working backwards.
If the timeline is indeed infinite, you would never finish that counting job. This is because an infinite timeline has no starting point so there is no endpoint to such a counting job.

That is an excellent example of a bald-faced, unfounded assertion. If a so called timeline ends at the most current Now, it is finite, not infinite. It does not matter when said hypothetical timeline began. It stopped (for reasons unknown to any observer) - therefore more time can be added. I think you the only person out there that does not understand this?

The timeline did not begin. Moreover, adding numbers to an infinite quantity does not get you a larger quantity. In other words, (-∞, 0] is the same size as (-∞, 1] which is the same size as (-∞, 1000]. Note that this does not mean that all infinite sets are the same size.

 

[JDaniel]

Then what actualized God? After all, you are claiming that it is possible to make God actual. If you claim he was not actualized, but still exists, then his actualizability has no bearing on whether or not he exists.

TTC:

What is your definition of “actualized?” This is mine: “To make a reality of.”

If God is not real, then there is nothing but nothingness as the impetus for the material universe/multiverse at the explicate level. At the implicate level, there would not even be nothingness. What you are describing is “creation” without a Creator, which is far, far more than an “effect” without a cause.

Even people who understand the odds in the lottery don’t rule out the possibility of winning in the same way that an infinite regression is ruled out in the prime-mover argument.

The lottery is something that odds that can be attributed to. An actual infinite regression - with a current starting point - is a contradiction. Two different things, one having the attribute of “odds,” and one not possessing even an iota of that attribute. Your absurd picture actually requires two counters, one to go back into the past and one to go forward into the future. The collision of the past and the future in the middle would be your beginning point. Then it would seem that you would agree that time is circular? Question: Does Time, in your view, occur in the absence of mobile being (at least two, if you subscribe to relativity)?

You’re ignoring my point. The idea was raised that an actual infinity can’t exist because nothing could extend beyond it to measure it.

I didn’t make that point, so it is not one that I would want to respond to. It’s not an argument I would make.

I claimed we cannot measure God. Therefore, if an inability to measure something is proof that it does not exist, then we must reject the God hypothesis.

Oranges and rocks. Not my argument. (I think you have me confused with another poster.)

No. Your counting example was deficient. Here is the correct counting setup:
I will set out to count the seconds that have passed, starting with the present and working backwards.

And we’ll be delighted to wait.

How absurd!

If the timeline is indeed infinite, you would never finish that counting job.

What ever gave you that idea?

This is because an infinite timeline has no starting point so there is no endpoint to such a counting job.

No starting point = no ending point. What kind of logic is that?

The timeline did not begin. Moreover, adding numbers to an infinite quantity does not get you a larger quantity. In other words, (-∞, 0] is the same size as (-∞, 1] which is the same size as (-∞, 1000]. Note that this does not mean that all infinite sets are the same size.

Again, are you sure you want to say this? You can’t just substitute some essentially nebulous symbol and think it to be a vague number. by turning the number eight on its side. It is nothing more than a symbol. It represents a non-descript concept. It does not represent a number. You may as well say, how much is 1 plus blue? It is a senseless, meaningless construct that consists of two unrelated constituents.

God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TTC:

What is your definition of “actualized?” This is mine: “To make a reality of.”

If God is not real, then there is nothing but nothingness as the impetus for the material universe/multiverse at the explicate level. At the implicate level, there would not even be nothingness. What you are describing is “creation” without a Creator, which is far, far more than an “effect” without a cause.

So answer my question. Who/what made God real? Was he not made real? If he was not made real, but is real anyway, then his actualizability is irrelevant to his reality.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The lottery is something that odds that can be attributed to. An actual infinite regression - with a current starting point - is a contradiction. Two different things, one having the attribute of “odds,” and one not possessing even an iota of that attribute. Your absurd picture actually requires two counters, one to go back into the past and one to go forward into the future. The collision of the past and the future in the middle would be your beginning point. Then it would seem that you would agree that time is circular? Question: Does Time, in your view, occur in the absence of mobile being (at least two, if you subscribe to relativity)?

You have obviously never understood any mathematics which describe infinite quantities. There is no inherent contradiction with a quantity that is infinite in one direction only, and mathematics have used such quantities successfully for a long time. There are real and practical situations where it is useful to have a set that is bound on one side and infinite on the other. For example, in statistics, we calculate a cumulative distribution function by integrating a probability density function from negative infinity to a point.

A circular timeline is a separate consideration. I am restricting myself to linear time.

I think you’ll have to rephrase the last question for me. I will say for the sake of argument that this infinite timeline would occur even in there is no motion.

No starting point = no ending point. What kind of logic is that?

I can understand that you are confused. I will repeat myself:

1. Lets count the number of seconds that have happened so far!
2. To do this, we will start with a fixed time (i.e. whenever we start) and work backwards:
   1 second ago|2 seconds ago|3 seconds ago| … | n seconds ago
3. When will we be done? This is equivalent to asking “what is the value for n that represents the point at which there are no more seconds left to count?”
4. If there is a value for n such that there are no more seconds left to count, then time began n seconds ago.
5. If time began n seconds ago, then the timeline is not infinite in the backwards direction.
6. The timeline *is *infinite in the backwards direction.
7. Therefore, there is no value for n such that there are no more seconds left to count.

Again, are you sure you want to say this? You can’t just substitute some essentially nebulous symbol and think it to be a vague number. by turning the number eight on its side. It is nothing more than a symbol. It represents a non-descript concept. It does not represent a number. You may as well say, how much is 1 plus blue? It is a senseless, meaningless construct that consists of two unrelated constituents.

Lets cover some basic set notation then.
(-∞, 0] means the set of numbers between negative infinity and 0, not including negative infinity and including 0. Infinity is defined as a number which is larger than all other numbers. We could use this to represent all the time up until the present (i.e. define the present to be time 0.)

(0, 1] is the set of numbers between 0 and 1, containing 1 and not containing 0. This could represent all the time between the present and 1 year from now.

The union of these two sets is (-∞, 1], which means all the time up to now plus 1 year.

Now, you claimed:

It stopped (for reasons unknown to any observer) - therefore more time can be added. I think you the only person out there that does not understand this?

However, while it is true that we have just demonstrate how to add time, it is also true that (-∞, 0] and (-∞, 1] are the same size.

 

[empther]

(-∞, 0] means the set of numbers between negative infinity and 0

(-∞, 0] means nothing real. “Between intinity” and some discrete number had no real meaning.

When is TrueCentrist going to give up this nonsense?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I can understand that you are confused. I will repeat myself:

1. Lets count the number of seconds that have happened so far!
2. To do this, we will start with a fixed time (i.e. whenever we start) and work backwards:
   1 second ago|2 seconds ago|3 seconds ago| … | n seconds ago
3. When will we be done? This is equivalent to asking “what is the value for n that represents the point at which there are no more seconds left to count?”
4. If there is a value for n such that there are no more seconds left to count, then time began n seconds ago.
5. If time began n seconds ago, then the timeline is not infinite in the backwards direction.
6. The timeline *is *infinite in the backwards direction.
7. Therefore, there is no value for n such that there are no more seconds left to count.

You should have stopped at 5; time began 13.75 billion years ago (or 4.339x10[sup]17[/sup] seconds ago). That time began that long ago is an indisputable fact, thus n is a countable number, not an infinite number.

 

[JDaniel]

So answer my question. Who/what made God real? Was he not made real? If he was not made real, but is real anyway, then his actualizability is irrelevant to his reality.

TTC:

That is the most convoluted logic I’ve ever heard!

How old are you? I have a feeling I’m dealing with a teenager. What are you, about 14 or 15 years old? I’m not disparaging you for your age, I just want to know how much longer I might have to keep this going. It’s for my own edification, you understand?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You have obviously never understood any mathematics which describe infinite quantities. There is no inherent contradiction with a quantity that is infinite in one direction only, and mathematics have used such quantities successfully for a long time. There are real and practical situations where it is useful to have a set that is bound on one side and infinite on the other. For example, in statistics, we calculate a cumulative distribution function by integrating a probability density function from negative infinity to a point.

TTC:

You either can’t read English, or patently ignored my post # 58, in this thread. Mathematics is abstraction. When I look up and notice a flock of birds, I know they are birds precisely because they each have “bird-ness.” That there are “x many” is not essential to their beings. The information might be ‘useful’ to me, in case I want to kill them and eat them.

A circular timeline is a separate consideration. I am restricting myself to linear time.

You’d better take another look at your definition.

I think you’ll have to rephrase the last question for me. I will say for the sake of argument that this infinite timeline would occur even in there is no motion.

So, in a universe where there absolutely no motion of any kind whatsoever, any where in it or outside of it, there is time?

I can understand that you are confused.

Sorry; I’m not the confused one.

I will repeat myself:

Oh, great.

1. Lets count the number of seconds that have happened so far!
2. To do this, we will start with a fixed time (i.e. whenever we start) and work backwards:
   1 second ago|2 seconds ago|3 seconds ago| … | n seconds ago

Time is a real correlative of motion. It is not subject to abstraction. Really, it’s the other way 'round.

1. When will we be done? This is equivalent to asking “what is the value for n that represents the point at which there are no more seconds left to count?”

“n” represents a pure hypothetical. A game for the human mind.

Oops. I’ve just been called in to work. Must go now. Will finish responding latter.

God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TTC:

You either can’t read English, or patently ignored my post # 58, in this thread. Mathematics is abstraction. When I look up and notice a flock of birds, I know they are birds precisely because they each have “bird-ness.” That there are “x many” is not essential to their beings. The information might be ‘useful’ to me, in case I want to kill them and eat them.

I’ve been implicitly working under the assumption that an actual infinity will be described by a mathematical abstraction of infinity. Your claims about an actual infinity have not matched up with the mathematical description, and that is what I’ve been pointing out.

I am not saying that because the mathematical description of infinity exists an actual infinity must exist.

My claim: If an actual infinity exists, it would be described by a mathematical abstraction of infinity. Your description of an actual infinity does not conform to a mathematical abstraction, therefore it is not the correct description of an actual infinity.

Your reading of my claim: The existence of a mathematical abstraction proves the existence of an infinite quantity.

 

[danserr]

That you may find the consequences of an infinite past “absurd” is not a very strong argument. It is true that the properties of an infinite regression are complex and counter-intuitive, but neither of those factors is sufficient to render its existence impossible.
I would point out that the infinite regression hypothesis is dismissed out of hand in the course of the prime mover argument. I have not seen any argument yet that is sufficiently convincing to allow such a sweeping and immediate dismissal. To accomplish this, we would have to find some aspect of an infinite regression that is logically self-contradictory or implies that something we actually observe is impossible. Your point about subtraction is an attempt at this, but I see no reason why a rule that is applicable to a finite subset (i.e. removing the odd numbers results in a smaller set) should apply to the infinite whole.

By “absurd,” I did not mean “I find it emotionally weird” as you seem to think. I meant philosophically absurd. The example I showed, show that the existence of an actual infinite would result in contradictions. In both cases you subtract infinity from infinity and get different answers. This is why in transfinite mathematics, you cannot do subtraction.
But if an actual infinite existed in the real world, you would have to be able to.

Nor do these absurdities disappear because the past does not exist all at once. Hence, the idea of an infinite past is philosophically absurd.

Another idea. Suppose I go to borrow a book from a friend. He says, “sure, let me get it from my friend.” He goes to his friend, who says “sure, let me get it from my friend,” and so on to infinity. One thing is for certain. I am never going to get that book!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TTC:

That is the most convoluted logic I’ve ever heard!

How old are you? I have a feeling I’m dealing with a teenager. What are you, about 14 or 15 years old? I’m not disparaging you for your age, I just want to know how much longer I might have to keep this going. It’s for my own edification, you understand?

God bless,
jd

I guess some people might consider this reasoning “convoluted” but there really are not that many premises.

Your claim: God is actualizable. Actualize is defined as “To make a reality of” so actualizable means “capable of being made into reality.” Therefore, your claim is that it is possible to make God into a reality.

My question, therefore, is what made God real?

Possible responses:
Response|Consequence
God was not made real but is real|It is possible to be real without being made real
God was not made real and is not real|There is no God
God was made real|god is not God

Now, presumably you will chose response 1. If it is possible to become real without being made real (i.e. actualized,) then reality (or existence) does not imply actualizability and your claim:

Are you sure you want to say that? Are you really, really sure? If a thing cannot be actualized, it cannot, per definitionem, EVER exist. Period. Only a thing that is actualizable can possibly exist - even if it doesn’t exist at this present moment.

is incorrect.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

By “absurd,” I did not mean “I find it emotionally weird” as you seem to think. I meant philosophically absurd. The example I showed, show that the existence of an actual infinite would result in contradictions. In both cases you subtract infinity from infinity and get different answers. This is why in transfinite mathematics, you cannot do subtraction.
But if an actual infinite existed in the real world, you would have to be able to.

Nor do these absurdities disappear because the past does not exist all at once. Hence, the idea of an infinite past is philosophically absurd.

Another idea. Suppose I go to borrow a book from a friend. He says, “sure, let me get it from my friend.” He goes to his friend, who says “sure, let me get it from my friend,” and so on to infinity. One thing is for certain. I am never going to get that book!

But the subtraction example is not a contradiction. We have two rules for subtraction: one which applies to finite subsets, and another which applies to infinities.

You should read about Hilbert’s Grand Hotel. The results, while very much counter-intuitive (perhaps appearing “absurd”,) are not self-contradictory.

Your book example is analogous to the cigar mystery explained in the link. However, this is different than our “infinite regression” problem. Since we actually exist, we form an induction basis. Your book example would be more accurately put: I got a book from my friend, who got it from his friend, who got it from his… and so on. I am not 100% certain, but I think your phrasing of the situation requires there to be a finite number of friends between you and the book, but mine does not require a finite limit.

 

[danserr]

But the subtraction example is not a contradiction. We have two rules for subtraction: one which applies to finite subsets, and another which applies to infinities.

You should read about Hilbert’s Grand Hotel. The results, while very much counter-intuitive (perhaps appearing “absurd”,) are not self-contradictory.

Your book example is analogous to the cigar mystery explained in the link. However, this is different than our “infinite regression” problem. Since we actually exist, we form an induction basis. Your book example would be more accurately put: I got a book from my friend, who got it from his friend, who got it from his… and so on. I am not 100% certain, but I think your phrasing of the situation requires there to be a finite number of friends between you and the book, but mine does not require a finite limit.

Except Hilbert’s hotel was used by the great mathematician to argue that in the realm of abstract mathematics, the Cantor’s set theory could account for actual infinites. It was not meant to imply that an actual infinite could exist. Hence Hilbert says, “the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it no where exists, nor provides a basis for rational thought, the role for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”

Second, keep in mind that Hilbert’s hotel does not allow for subtraction. This is where the contradictions and absurdities really show up. This in fine in abstract mathmatics, but in real life, subtraction would have to be possible, hence the idea an actual infinite can exist is philosophically absurd.

Even if I phrased the book example as you want me to (and I don’t have to, since my way suffices to show the absurdity of the situation), then I don’t think it changes the matter. In the same case, the book has gone through an infinite number of people to reach me, which is impossible.

From your post, I suspect you would reply, that in this case, there has only ever been a finite number of friends between any individual friend with the book and me. But this does not help. That is like saying that because a part of the line can be formed by successive addition, that the whole line could be formed that way, but it does not follow that the whole line could be. And if the book really went through an infinite number of friends, then that is what we are trying to account for. In this case, you run into a logical fallacy.

To say that because the book could any finite number of friends and hence could pass through an infinite number of friends, is like saying that because every part of the elephant is light in weight, the whole elephant is.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Except Hilbert’s hotel was used by the great mathematician to argue that in the realm of abstract mathematics, the Cantor’s set theory could account for actual infinites. It was not meant to imply that an actual infinite could exist. Hence Hilbert says, “the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it no where exists, nor provides a basis for rational thought, the role for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”

Second, keep in mind that Hilbert’s hotel does not allow for subtraction. This is where the contradictions and absurdities really show up. This in fine in abstract mathmatics, but in real life, subtraction would have to be possible, hence the idea an actual infinite can exist is philosophically absurd.

Even if I phrased the book example as you want me to (and I don’t have to, since my way suffices to show the absurdity of the situation), then I don’t think it changes the matter. In the same case, the book has gone through an infinite number of people to reach me, which is impossible.

From your post, I suspect you would reply, that in this case, there has only ever been a finite number of friends between any individual friend with the book and me. But this does not help. That is like saying that because a part of the line can be formed by successive addition, that the whole line could be formed that way, but it does not follow that the whole line could be. And if the book really went through an infinite number of friends, then that is what we are trying to account for. In this case, you run into a logical fallacy.

To say that because the book could any finite number of friends and hence could pass through an infinite number of friends, is like saying that because every part of the elephant is light in weight, the whole elephant is.

I’ve been implicitly working under the assumption that an actual infinity will be described by a mathematical abstraction of infinity. Your claims about an actual infinity have not matched up with the mathematical description, and that is what I’ve been pointing out.

I am not saying that because the mathematical description of infinity exists an actual infinity must exist.

My claim: If an actual infinity exists, it would be described by a mathematical abstraction of infinity. Your description of an actual infinity does not conform to a mathematical abstraction, therefore it is not the correct description of an actual infinity.

Your reading of my claim: The existence of a mathematical abstraction proves the existence of an infinite quantity.

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve been implicitly working under the assumption that an actual infinity will be described by a mathematical abstraction of infinity.

TTC:

Your wording here is that of attempting to be axiomatic. Is it the TCC-axiom?

Replace the highlighted word with “may,” and you have a proposition that does not completely color reality with your exquisite intent.

Your claims about an actual infinity have not matched up with the mathematical description, and that is what I’ve been pointing out.

Only your opinion.

Your inability to see my argument stems from your unwillingness to consider and concede to two very important points: 1) the Now is the end of a finite sequential, aggregating progression of past-time “now’s,” whereupon the entirety of past time is summarily actualized and finite - at each and every one that is occurring. But, infinity is unactualizability per definitionem. And, 2) each additional Now, or second (if you prefer), ongoing into the future, is aggregating to a finite, aggregative structure called “past time,” thereby increasing the whole of past time’s real number of seconds, or, Now’s. You cannot argue against this by merely denying that it is not so, because everyone would understand you to be somewhat strange, to say the least.

Infinity may be said to have hypothetical boundaries in conjectural, hypothetical, abstract mathematics, but an actualized infinity is not bound by either any outermost extremity of any kind, or by abstract mathematics. Neither can a reverse infinity be said to be real. There comes a point at which nothing smaller can be sliced from any part of a real exigency. The point of a line is without dimension, for example. But, past time is a continuum - for as long as there exists mobile beings. And, what if motion and time are not real? What if, as some physics students contend, they are illusions? Time, then, would be the pinnacle of abstraction!

I am not saying that because the mathematical description of infinity exists an actual infinity must exist.

Bless you.

My claim: If an actual infinity exists, it would be described by a mathematical abstraction of infinity. Your description of an actual infinity does not conform to a mathematical abstraction, therefore it is not the correct description of an actual infinity.

Maybe so, maybe not. The rest of the world indicates that there are three kinds of infinities: (1) an infinity that is of unrestricted power, as opposed to '“multitude;”(2) an infinity that is applied to some sort of finite, or aggregating, structure, such as a real number line, or, past time; and, (3) an infinity similar to # (2) except that it is applied to actual exigencies, such as real atoms, or quarks, or numbers inside a Cantorian set.

Your reading of my claim: The existence of a mathematical abstraction proves the existence of an infinite quantity.

Not at all. You are spinning my argument according to your intent.

God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TTC:

Your wording here is that of attempting to be axiomatic. Is it the TCC-axiom?

Replace the highlighted word with “may,” and you have a proposition that does not completely color reality with your exquisite intent.

Certainly, if you wish me to have a larger field to play in, then we may consider both actual infinities which are not described by mathematical abstractions and actual infinities which are. Now you have done a reasonable job arguing why your particular understanding of an actual infinity is impossible, but we have yet to eliminate the rest of the set of possible infinities that are not described by mathematical abstractions and the entire set of actual infinities which are.

Your inability to see my argument stems from your unwillingness to consider and concede to two very important points: 1) the Now is the end of a finite sequential, aggregating progression of past-time “now’s,” whereupon the entirety of past time is summarily actualized and finite - at each and every one that is occurring. But, infinity is unactualizability per definitionem. And, 2) each additional Now, or second (if you prefer), ongoing into the future, is aggregating to a finite, aggregative structure called “past time,” thereby increasing the whole of past time’s real number of seconds, or, Now’s. You cannot argue against this by merely denying that it is not so, because everyone would understand you to be somewhat strange, to say the least.

I would argue that accepting the sneaky point

infinity is unactualizability per definitionem

in #1 is tantamount to assuming what you want to prove. I will not accept it unless you answer my objection:

Your claim: God is actualizable. Actualize is defined as “To make a reality of” so actualizable means “capable of being made into reality.” Therefore, your claim is that it is possible to make God into a reality.

My question, therefore, is what made God real?
Possible responses:
Response|Consequence
God was not made real but is real|It is possible to be real without being made real
God was not made real and is not real|There is no God
God was made real|god is not God

Now, presumably you will chose response 1. If it is possible to become real without being made real (i.e. actualized,) then reality (or existence) does not imply actualizability and your claim:
JDaniel;9146272:

Are you sure you want to say that? Are you really, really sure? If a thing cannot be actualized

, it cannot, per definitionem, EVER exist. Period. Only a thing that is actualizable can possibly exist - even if it doesn’t exist at this present moment
is incorrect.

Moreover, if the only reason I can’t simply deny point 2 is that “most people think that’s weird,” then I am completely comfortable denying point #2. Infinity is not intuitive, so “what everyone thinks” on this subject is actually more likely to be wrong than right.

 

[empther]

A-team blabber: :hey_bud:
My claim: If an actual infinity exists, it would be described by a mathematical abstraction of infinity. Your description of an actual infinity does not conform to a mathematical abstraction, therefore it is not the correct description of an actual infinity.

Mathematics applies to what is countable, divisible, or measureable, but as Aquinas explains God is “supremely one”.
Therefore, mathematical expressions don’t apply to God, except, if you want to stretch a point, the following expression: “1”.

 

[CGDouglas]

TheTrueCentrist:

My question, therefore, is what made God real?

What can be deduced by Aquina’s methods in the Summa is that as Aristotle says, an uncaused cause must be the prime for anything to come to existence.

God by His own existence is real, God Himself is real. An uncaused cause, a contrary to the argument in favour for infinite regression. This would be your anticipated response #1.

However the question is an invalid question, the question presumes that the metaphysical is subject to the same or similar methods as exists in the physical construct. This is unknown.

In contrary of the position of the uncaused cause: infinite regression, one has to argue how one simply exists when there is no uncaused cause:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Entity exists)

One cannot obtain existence because one never originates. Progressive or Regressive.

Simply put, infinite regression argues for existence without beginning. One either exists with beginning or one exists as. The former is in the case of the materialistic construct, the latter is of the immaterial. They’re unique.

With an uncaused cause:

(infinite) ----------------------------------------- (finite)

The infinite exists, just as. The finite depends upon the existence of the infinite (just as).

God Bless,

Christopher.