The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

That’s funny! Why ‘squared’ instead of ‘plus 1’ or even ‘cubed’ for that matter?!?!

I didn’t think this would become a physics thread, as in “physics proves god created existence”. But for some bizarre reason, you had to go there.

I use all tools at my disposal, including physics.

And like I just demonstrated, those tools suck.

Light is considered by physics the cosmological constant. It’s not infinite. It’s 186,000 miles per second. But because it’s considered the cosmological constant (by definition!) how can anything possibly move faster than it?!?!

Basic, basic logic!

The fastest thing in existence is thought!

E=MC^2 is not claiming anything goes faster than light. It is only showing energy and mass equivalence.

By order of operations in math C^2 is done first (Before multiplication).

forbes.com/sites/startswith … does-emc2/

No. You really don’t get it. “C” literally stands for “cosmological constant”. If it can be added to, then it is no longer the cosmological constant! Duh! Very basic logic.

John, you yourself stated that the photon has the most unique properties about 3 posts ago (the only timeless particle)… regardless of what you think about my argument against your ‘timeless’ claim, this special status that you’re giving the photon is that it travels at the cosmological constant (hence the letter “c”)… if “c” ever increases… it’s no longer “c”!!

Now if the equations used something like “p” for photon, we wouldn’t be having this discussion!

You really aren’t making any points here. Your assertion that multiplying c x c is somehow improper flies in the face of General Relativity and physics. Multiplying C x C is part of the equation E=MC^2, and is necessary to calculate work in the joules unit.

You’re totally dodging the point or ignoring it.

C

Literally means “cosmological constant”

Like I stated before … if they used the term “vp” (velocity of a proton). We would not be having this discussion!!

You see, Einstein was a religious man. What’s the number 1 concept of religion? Light. So instead of calling it the velocity of a photon, he decided to call light the cosmological constant. If a cosmological constant can be added to, it’s not a cosmological constant (duh!). Einstein was a horrible example of a human being in a great many ways … evangelical Christians (all of them morons) love Einstein.

I think categorically seeking a religious motive, in stead another front can be opened.

Such as , how do the primal philosophical questions relating to the naturalistic fallacy: Is factual ‘is’ conceptions reducible to ‘ought’ types of propositions help to ingenie the question,- may be appropriate her.
As well the other current dialogue dealing with the Darwinian justification. I am not implying a trespass into these other forums, only noticed coincidentally, that they are currently indicative of pertinent , maybe not totally coincidentally formed inquiries.

If not, it may still be worth a try.

Ecmandu,

“Now we’re getting to the c² part of the equation, which serves the same purpose as the star-on and star-off machines in “The Sneetches.” The c stands for the speed of light, a universal constant, so the whole equation breaks down to this: Energy is equal to matter multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Why would you need to multiply matter by the speed of light to produce energy? The reason is that energy, be it light waves or radiation, travels at the speed of light. That breaks down to 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second). When we split an atom inside a nuclear power plant or an atomic bomb, the resulting energy releases at the speed of light.

But why is the speed of light squared? The reason is that kinetic energy, or the energy of motion, is proportional to mass. When you accelerate an object, the kinetic energy increases to the tune of the speed squared. You’ll find an excellent example of this in any driver’s education manual: If you double your speed, the braking distance is four times longer, so the braking distance is equal to the speed squared [source: UNSW Physics: Einsteinlight].

The speed of light squared is a colossal number, illustrating just how much energy there is in even tiny amounts of matter. A common example of this is that 1 gram of water – if its whole mass were converted into pure energy via E=mc² – contains as much energy as 20,000 tons (18,143 metric tons) of TNT exploding. That’s why such a small amount of uranium or plutonium can produce such a massive atomic explosion.

Einstein’s equation opened the door for numerous technological advances, from nuclear power and nuclear medicine to the inner workings of the sun. It shows us that matter and energy are one.”

science.howstuffworks.com/scien … ormula.htm

E=MC^2 opens up nothing. Splitting an atom needs no equation. You just split the damn thing.

If the “universal constant” as you worded it means nothing can travel faster than it, than your kinetic energy jargon is meaningless.

Look at the term used in the equation and why a theistic (propaganda) society would have us all convinced that nothing travels faster than light!! BUT!! Light can be squared!! It’s absurd.

II. THE ARGUMENT FROM CREATIO EX NIHILO (BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The creatio ex nihilo argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that because all physical reality in the cosmos is caused there must be an uncaused transcendent reality that causes physical reality to appear from non-existence. Anything with parts is caused by those parts. If those parts were uncaused, then the parts could not change because a changed part would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. The order of uncaused parts would also be uncaused, because parts require order and could not exist in an uncaused state without an uncaused order. Anything made of uncaused parts would be uncaused, because the uncaused order of uncaused parts cannot be changed, because a changed order would be caused by the change and hence not uncaused. Therefore, any composite that can change cannot be uncaused and its parts cannot be uncaused.
Because physical reality in the cosmos entails only parts and composites that can change, then physical reality cannot be uncaused. Because matter which experiences time can be caused from or transform into timeless photons, then time itself cannot be uncaused. Moreover, physical reality cannot cause itself, because if part A is caused by part B which in turn is caused by part A, then the ultimate cause of part A would be itself which is impossible because a being cannot be contingent on itself. The cause of physical reality must ultimately be an uncaused reality that does not change and cannot be made or transform into something else. The ultimate cause of physical reality must therefore transcend physical reality and cause physical reality to appear from non-existence or creatio ex nihilo. Because physical reality cannot be caused by nothing, this uncaused transcendent reality is not nothing but what we call God.

Exactly, unless … the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.

Meno,

You misspelled “genius”.

You misspelled “genius”.

Sorry, genius …or, ingenious …

John,

I thought you had abandoned our discussion. I just noticed your reply below, so let me respond to it:

I would think this would be the only way if indeed God created the universe and time is a feature of this universe. But infinite regresses are not temporal in nature, they are logical. God as an explanation of the universe leads to an infinite regress if that explanation is really an explanation for existence itself. Saying God created existence falls short because it obviously means God existed before he created anything, which is to say there was already existence, which is to say God couldn’t have created existence. On the other hand, if God as an explanation for the universe is not an explanation for existence more generally (as if we live in a multiverse and we’re only interested in explaining this universe), then there’s no problem invoking God as an explanation for the universe, or at least it doesn’t lead to an infinite regress.

What do you mean it doesn’t “have” space or time? It is space and time. A unit of anything is still an instance of that thing. Like how an H2O molecule is still water. However, you split that molecule into two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom and then it ceases to be water. This was the point I was making about the fundamental unit of spacetime being the 10^-33 seconds and there being further sub-units of pre-time entities, at least two of which are needed to make spacetime.

This is what I need help with. What is a “spacetime reality” as opposed to just “spacetime”? The problem I am having is that I don’t see what causes spacetime to cease to be spacetime once you cross a certain threshold of repetitive division. The water analogy is very useful here. Until you get a single molecule of H2O, water is still water no matter how many times you divide it. But once you carry out a further division on the H2O molecule, you cease to get water and instead get hydrogen and oxygen. At least with water, I can understand what’s so special about that step. It’s the step where you’re no longer simply getting fewer and fewer of the same kinds of things (H2O molecules), but different kinds of things. At what point does something like this happen with spacetime, and why?

I did, remember? I already explained why not all infinite regresses are of the same kind, and that not all kinds are logically problematic.

Gib,

God’s existence is not created existence. God is uncaused. Created existence is caused. God’s uncaused existence can logically precede caused existence. No infinite regress is required.

An indivisible unit of spacetime creates spacetime and cannot be what it creates.

[quote=“JohnJBannan”]
Gib,

God’s existence is not created existence. God is uncaused. Created existence is caused. God’s uncaused existence can logically precede caused existence. No infinite regress is required.

An indivisible unit of spacetime creates spacetime and cannot be what it creates.[/quote

That’s very problematic in its own right John.

So there’s no motion; god…

And then there’s suddenly motion; god

That means god made something out of nothing!

If god can make something out of nothing, then why not a universe without god?