The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

[Ecmandu]

God is uncaused. God’s uncaused mind and uncaused knowledge is God. It’s not greater than God.

Otherness is greater than every being in existence!


Your exact quote: “god doesn’t create otherness” “but god knows otherness”

God doesn’t create what god knows?

John, let me be blunt to you. No being in all of existence exists without otherness. God included.

[JohnJBannan]

God is uncaused. God’s uncaused mind and uncaused knowledge is God. It’s not greater than God.

Otherness is greater than every being in existence!


Your exact quote: “god doesn’t create otherness” “but god knows otherness”

God doesn’t create what god knows?

John, let me be blunt to you. No being in all of existence exists without otherness. God included.

God has uncaused knowledge and uncaused power to create otherness in physical reality. God does not need physical reality to exist.

[Ecmandu]

God is uncaused. God’s uncaused mind and uncaused knowledge is God. It’s not greater than God.

Otherness is greater than every being in existence!


Your exact quote: “god doesn’t create otherness” “but god knows otherness”

God doesn’t create what god knows?

John, let me be blunt to you. No being in all of existence exists without otherness. God included.

God has uncaused knowledge and uncaused power to create otherness in physical reality. God does not need physical reality to exist.

That’s not true. Space is defined as “otherness”. Time is defined as “patterned motion“. God cannot exist without either of those.

[JohnJBannan]

Space is defined as spacetime or the quantum field. Time is defined as a real dimension of spacetime. God creates spacetime.

[Ecmandu]

Space is defined as spacetime or the quantum field. Time is defined as a real dimension of spacetime. God creates spacetime.

John replied to ecmandu saying this to John:

“Space is defined as “otherness”. Time is defined as “patterned motion“. God cannot exist without either of those.”

My definitions are perfect John. Yours are barely legible...

[JohnJBannan]

My definitions are scientifically acceptable. Your’s aren’t.

[Ecmandu]

My definitions are scientifically acceptable. Your’s aren’t.

My definitions are self evidently true.

Quantum (whatever you’re trying to say here (just looks like a mash of words to me to make it sound intelligent and true)) anyways ‘quantum’ is a subset of otherness. Otherness is exactly what space is, there is no other possible solution to that definition.

My definition of time is also perfect. Patterned motion. Again, it’s self evidently true. If motion has no pattern, no being can perceive that motion. Since the motion can be perceived, it’s obviously patterned in some form.

Again, god cannot exist without otherness, god cannot exist without patterned motion. God is dependent on these, these are not dependent upon god.

[JohnJBannan]

Why would discreteness prove a beginning to the Universe?

[Ecmandu]

Why would discreteness prove a beginning to the Universe?

I just have to laugh that you’re avoiding my last post.

Anyways to answer this question. You’re the one in this thread who declared that the universe was discrete. Not me. Not gib. Both of us pointed out that even if existence is composed of digital rather than analogue that it could still go back forever.

[JohnJBannan]

Too bad. Thought you were on to something there.

[Ecmandu]

Too bad. Thought you were on to something there.

‘Something’ to you, meaning, defending an indefensible god concept you have in your head.

Of course, in the real world, I am on to something.

[gib]

I think it’s an upper limit on the basic unit of time. What it means is that there is no time between units.

Between the units? As in, between each frame? I wouldn't think there is any time between consecutive chunks of time regardless of quantization or not (that's what consecutive means).

Each unit is a discrete frame in the movie of time.

So during each frame, the universe stands still? And then when it moves to the next frame, every particle "leaps" to its next position?

By "upper limit", I assume these units could be shorter, but it couldn't be much longer.

In any case, this just comes across to me as an idea. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Even if it's true, I don't see why it requires a "first frame".

[Meno_]

Another inadvertent interjection:

Analogy to {The Law} may be appropriate:

In one case a preponderance of evidence may suffice 60/40. and/Or
60>59.999999999......./39.999999999.
and/or, beyond<......00000000001(a reasonable doubt)>000000000...
.

[JohnJBannan]

I think it’s an upper limit on the basic unit of time. What it means is that there is no time between units.

Between the units? As in, between each frame? I wouldn't think there is any time between consecutive chunks of time regardless of quantization or not (that's what consecutive means).

Each unit is a discrete frame in the movie of time.

So during each frame, the universe stands still? And then when it moves to the next frame, every particle "leaps" to its next position?

By "upper limit", I assume these units could be shorter, but it couldn't be much longer.

In any case, this just comes across to me as an idea. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Even if it's true, I don't see why it requires a "first frame".

No. The Universe does not exist without time. The universe is each frame becoming.

[JohnJBannan]

Another inadvertent interjection:

Analogy to {The Law} may be appropriate:

In one case a preponderance of evidence may suffice 60/40. and/Or
60>59.999999999......./39.999999999.
and/or, beyond<......00000000001(a reasonable doubt)>000000000...
.

A preponderance is greater than 50.0%. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not have an assigned percentage, but it’s way less than 100% certainty.

[Ecmandu]

I think it’s an upper limit on the basic unit of time. What it means is that there is no time between units.

Between the units? As in, between each frame? I wouldn't think there is any time between consecutive chunks of time regardless of quantization or not (that's what consecutive means).

Each unit is a discrete frame in the movie of time.

So during each frame, the universe stands still? And then when it moves to the next frame, every particle "leaps" to its next position?

By "upper limit", I assume these units could be shorter, but it couldn't be much longer.

In any case, this just comes across to me as an idea. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. Even if it's true, I don't see why it requires a "first frame".

No. The Universe does not exist without time. The universe is each frame becoming.

John wrote: “no. The universe does not exist without time”

Me: that’s correct John, all time is, is patterned motion. Nothing exists without patterned motion.

John: “the universe is each frame becoming”

Me: that’s only because you desire a beginning and end to the universe because of your god bias. A universe with no beginning or end is foundationally not discrete in the macro or micro, which interferes with your conception of god in your mind.

[gib]

No. No, what? The Universe does not exist without time. I agree. The universe is each frame becoming.

What does that mean? I'm not sure which of my points this is aimed at. Are you objecting to my question about the universe standing still for each frame of 10^-33 seconds? What does it mean to say the universe is "becoming" for each frame?

[JohnJBannan]

No. No, what? The Universe does not exist without time. I agree. The universe is each frame becoming.

What does that mean? I'm not sure which of my points this is aimed at. Are you objecting to my question about the universe standing still for each frame of 10^-33 seconds? What does it mean to say the universe is "becoming" for each frame?

Each frame comes to exist and then is replaced with no time in between. It’s the sequence of frames that is time.

[JohnJBannan]

II. THE IMPOSSIBLITY OF UNCAUSED PHYSICAL REALITY (BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The impossibility of uncaused physical reality proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the cosmos requires a transcendent cause we call God. We observe from the cosmos that physical reality is made of parts. If physical reality were uncaused, then there would be a highest number of parts physical reality could reach and there could never be cause to exceed this highest number. The calculation of this highest number of parts cannot be specifically derived from an uncaused physical reality, because an uncaused physical reality has no definitive source for such a derivation. Therefore, such a highest number of parts is impossible and hence physical reality cannot be uncaused. Because physical reality cannot be uncaused, then physical reality must have a transcendent cause we call God.

[gib]

Each frame comes to exist and then is replaced with no time in between. It’s the sequence of frames that is time.

Yeah, I wouldn't think there'd be any time in between. That'd be like saying between each frame of a film reel, there are extra frames. But my question is: what happens during each frame? Does the universe stand still? If frames in a film is the analogy we're going with, then that conjures up an image of the scene being still (just a picture) in each frame. So if each frame in the film lasts only 10^-33 seconds in the light of the projector, then for 10^-33 seconds, the universe stands still. Then when it moves to the next frame, the universe is in a slightly different position (or slightly different arrangement, or slightly different state), and there is no smooth movement from one state to the next--the universe "jumps" from one state to the next. The fact that these frames go by so quickly coupled with the fact that the differences in the universe's state between each frame are ever so slight, gives rises to the appearance of motion.

^ Is that what you have in mind?

[JohnJBannan]

Ah, the weirdness that is the universe.

The universe does not stand still for each frame. Standing still requires time. There is no time from the perspective of a frame, except its appearance moment which is an indivisible unit of spacetime and not a thing acting within time.

[gib]

Ah, the weirdness that is the universe.

The universe does not stand still for each frame. Standing still requires time. There is no time from the perspective of a frame, except its appearance moment which is an indivisible unit of spacetime and not a thing acting within time.

Then this makes no sense. You're saying no time goes by for each frame, yet each frame is 10^-33 seconds long. Extremely short but not 0.

[JohnJBannan]

No. I said that each frame is an indivisible unit of spacetime. 10^-33 = 1 frame

[Meno_]

I wish I could interject here some thing without being out of order.

[gib]

No. I said that each frame is an indivisible unit of spacetime. 10^-33 = 1 frame

Ok then, I just don't understand what you mean by "There is no time from the perspective of a frame".

Anyway, you still haven't answered my question: what is happening to the universe during the 10^-33 seconds of each frame? We're ruling out standing still. So it must be moving (or changing). What other option is there?