The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:27 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Why does time need to be created? You know, when you read texts of Hinduism, they state very clearly that time never began. That’s how amazing god is.

There’s a story that krishna once opened his mouth to show his mother something.... and it was the entire cosmos with no beginning or end. She started to go insane ... so he erased her memories of the event.

I know you think the Bible is religion John. But it’s not not factually true that the Bible is religion. It’s just a sliver of all religion on earth. You think you have the true one in your head, that existence begins and ends.

Actually, you have the most absurd one in your head.

Again, time is patterned motion. Without patterned motion, no consciousness is possible. Even gods consciousness. What was before time? Non patterned motion? That’s absurd.

From the human perspective here, you are born and then you die. Like above so below right? You’re anthrpomorphizing existence from your teeny human experience of it. “If I begin and die, then so does existence itself”

Your argument is narcissistic.


You already know my arguments as to why time must begin. However, I would point out to you that the photon is supposedly timeless under General Relativity. So, time is apparently not necessary for the existence of light - so endless time is not necessary.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:37 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Why does time need to be created? You know, when you read texts of Hinduism, they state very clearly that time never began. That’s how amazing god is.

There’s a story that krishna once opened his mouth to show his mother something.... and it was the entire cosmos with no beginning or end. She started to go insane ... so he erased her memories of the event.

I know you think the Bible is religion John. But it’s not not factually true that the Bible is religion. It’s just a sliver of all religion on earth. You think you have the true one in your head, that existence begins and ends.

Actually, you have the most absurd one in your head.

Again, time is patterned motion. Without patterned motion, no consciousness is possible. Even gods consciousness. What was before time? Non patterned motion? That’s absurd.

From the human perspective here, you are born and then you die. Like above so below right? You’re anthrpomorphizing existence from your teeny human experience of it. “If I begin and die, then so does existence itself”

Your argument is narcissistic.


You already know my arguments as to why time must begin. However, I would point out to you that the photon is supposedly timeless under General Relativity. So, time is apparently not necessary for the existence of light - so endless time is not necessary.


I know everyone’s arguments for why god must exist. You’re contradicting the Hindus for why they think your god is inferior to theirs.

You know why god doesn’t exist?

I’ve already stated it: nobody gives a shit about omnipotence, omnipresence or omniscience.

The ONLY thing people care about in god is omnibenevolence.

That’s it. That’s all people care about.

All you have to do is ask, “is my consent being violated in some way shape or form? Is some child dying of starvation right now? (Like they do every day!). That’s disproof of omnibenevolence.

The only god that matters to every being in existence hasn’t been born yet.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:20 pm

I don’t agree that omnibenevolence is all that everyone cares about. I think the #1 issue is whether God exists. If God doesn’t exist, who cares about the rest of this stuff?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby gib » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:00 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:While what you say about the photon is true and that was already my understanding of it, the photon does appear and disappear without the passage of time (supposedly). That makes the photon a timeless particle and NO TIME passes between its appearance and disappearance. That is in fact the understanding of the photon under General Relativity. So, by analogy to the photon, there is precedent in physics for a particle that can appear and disappear outside of time itself. An indivisible unit of spacetime is clearly not a logical impossibility, because we know photons are real and we know photons are timeless (supposedly).

“A photon cannot see or experience anything, as it turns out. It’s true that time doesn’t pass for a photon: in relativity, it represents what we call a null geodesic.“. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... -universe/


A photon wouldn't experience time passing regardless of whether it is traveling millions of light years through space or appearing and disappearing like a virtual particle. Photons always travel at the speed of light, even in the case of appearing and disappearing in an instant. <-- So that alone is enough to explain why they don't experience time. This is true of all virtual particles, BTW.

The article confirms exactly what I said.

And the idea that no time passes for the photon is only true from the photon's POV, not from ours.

Besides, it doesn't make one bit of difference whether the appearance and disappearance of the photon occurs in a timeless context. If somehow this is the case--an established scientific fact, let's say--it still doesn't make any sense. If I told you that 2 + 2 = 5, would you say it makes sense? I would think not. Then if I showed you how, scientifically, adding two things together with two other things somehow magically created five things, would it all of a sudden make sense to you? I would think not. And given that I don't think you understand the science behind the relation between photons and time, I still call bull shit on your quanta-of-time-yet-timeless units theory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to insist that the world has to make sense in order to be real. There's plenty of counterintuitive stuff to bring up as examples of nonsensical yet scientifically proven facts about our world--a particle spinning both up and down at the same time, for example--I just dispute any claim that proving that it's real all of a sudden makes it intelligible. If a proposition is completely unintelligible and doesn't make sense, and then you prove it, it just means the world is unintelligible and doesn't make sense... which is a real possibility--but I don't thereby pretend to understand it.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:17 pm

Gib,

A photon is timeless. That is precedent for a timeless particle. An indivisible unit of spacetime is a serious physics idea that comes to play in quantum gravity. It is not bs. You just don’t like hearing about it and the implications it has concerning the existence of a God who can interact with our universe.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:52 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:I don’t agree that omnibenevolence is all that everyone cares about. I think the #1 issue is whether God exists. If God doesn’t exist, who cares about the rest of this stuff?



Really?!?! What if god was omnimelevolent?

Which seems to be the case here. I’d rather have a chance to work towards omnibenevolence than have an eternal all powerful omnimelevolent being necessarily running the show forever!

John, you honestly don’t even think basic things through sometimes.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:12 pm

God’s existence is an independent truth. Whether you think God is bad is irrelevant.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby gib » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:20 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:A photon is timeless.


Oooh, why didn't you say so?!

JohnJBannan wrote:An indivisible unit of spacetime is a serious physics idea that comes to play in quantum gravity. It is not bs.


I didn't say that was BS. I said your construal of it as being a non-zero amount yet no time going by for it is BS. <-- That's the part that sounds contradictory to me. When they say the fundamental unit of time is 10^-33 seconds, I'm pretty sure they mean seconds. What's happening to the universe during that brief amount of time is still up in the air for me, but there is at least one scenario that makes sense in my mind: still-frames.

JohnJBannan wrote:You just don’t like hearing about it and the implications it has concerning the existence of a God who can interact with our universe.


It has absolutely no relevance to the existence of God and his ability to interact with the universe. Seriously. You're telling me that if I put forward two pictures of the universe to a sample of random people--one where time was continuous and one where time came in discrete indivisible units--and asked which one was created by a God, they would think it's obvious that the discrete units picture was the one?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:44 am

Gib,

What don’t you get about the photon being timeless? That means NO TIME! It doesn’t mean standing still time only.

You’re failing to appreciate the distinction between time and the indivisible unit of spacetime that creates time. Focus your attention on the word “CREATES”.

You would need to give these people more explanation between discrete and continuous time before they could address the difference between frames. In discrete time, there is a finite number of frames. In continuous time, there is an infinite number of frames. So, you’d have to show them the number of frames as well for them to see the difference.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:00 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:Gib,

What don’t you get about the photon being timeless? That means NO TIME! It doesn’t mean standing still time only.

You’re failing to appreciate the distinction between time and the indivisible unit of spacetime that creates time. Focus your attention on the word “CREATES”.

You would need to give these people more explanation between discrete and continuous time before they could address the difference between frames. In discrete time, there is a finite number of frames. In continuous time, there is an infinite number of frames. So, you’d have to show them the number of frames as well for them to see the difference.


Ahh... you’re pulling out a variation of Zeno here. If there’s an infinite number of frames between each frame, you can’t get to the next frame right?

Actually, the moment you start looking at the infinite number of frames between two frames, by definition, you are now looking at the next frame. Just not the frame you were referring to.

I’ve already stated in this thread that existence, the universe, the cosmos is infinite. Infinity cannot “be itself”, it is not a thing, it’s an operator, a verb if it ever stopped it wouldn’t be infinity anymore. The moment it tries to stop, (and everything tries to be itself), the discrete is the only thing it can do. Not your sense of discrete, rather gibs sense of discrete.

Neither I nor gib are bothered by infinite regress of frames. You are. Like I stated before, even the Hindus (who aren’t atheists) have no problem with this as well.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:08 pm

The difference in the two types of time is really an example of the differentiability between an abstracted continuum from a particularizational conception of segmented time.
In a cosmological abstraction, the relative time fades to the inconceivable , when the distance between two objects approaches the limits of the existence between them

When an object no longer exists in relative time between two objects, they can not be said to exist in measurable time relatively speaking.

On the level of microcosm, time likewise loses relative value

The same disconcepted relations must integrate at their limit and beyond.

Or, the uncertainty would overcome It's Self, and that is negatively tautological.( uncertainty between the infinitessible and the continuous)

That energy generated approaches, then overcomes It's own possible negation, and transforms into the highest form of energy.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7306
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:12 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Gib,

What don’t you get about the photon being timeless? That means NO TIME! It doesn’t mean standing still time only.

You’re failing to appreciate the distinction between time and the indivisible unit of spacetime that creates time. Focus your attention on the word “CREATES”.

You would need to give these people more explanation between discrete and continuous time before they could address the difference between frames. In discrete time, there is a finite number of frames. In continuous time, there is an infinite number of frames. So, you’d have to show them the number of frames as well for them to see the difference.


Ahh... you’re pulling out a variation of Zeno here. If there’s an infinite number of frames between each frame, you can’t get to the next frame right?

Actually, the moment you start looking at the infinite number of frames between two frames, by definition, you are now looking at the next frame. Just not the frame you were referring to.

I’ve already stated in this thread that existence, the universe, the cosmos is infinite. Infinity cannot “be itself”, it is not a thing, it’s an operator, a verb if it ever stopped it wouldn’t be infinity anymore. The moment it tries to stop, (and everything tries to be itself), the discrete is the only thing it can do. Not your sense of discrete, rather gibs sense of discrete.

Neither I nor gib are bothered by infinite regress of frames. You are. Like I stated before, even the Hindus (who aren’t atheists) have no problem with this as well.


Only a theist fool has no problem with actual infinites.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm

Meno_ wrote:The difference in the two types of time is really an example of the differentiability between an abstracted continuum from a particularizational conception of segmented time.
In a cosmological abstraction, the relative time fades to the inconceivable , when the distance between two objects approaches the limits of the existence between them

When an object no longer exists in relative time between two objects, they can not be said to exist in measurable time relatively speaking.

On the level of microcosm, time likewise loses relative value

The same disconcepted relations must integrate at their limit and beyond.

Or, the uncertainty would overcome It's Self, and that is negatively tautological.( uncertainty between the infinitessible and the continuous)

That energy generated approaches, then overcomes It's own possible negation, and transforms into the highest form of energy.


English translation please.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:39 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Gib,

What don’t you get about the photon being timeless? That means NO TIME! It doesn’t mean standing still time only.

You’re failing to appreciate the distinction between time and the indivisible unit of spacetime that creates time. Focus your attention on the word “CREATES”.

You would need to give these people more explanation between discrete and continuous time before they could address the difference between frames. In discrete time, there is a finite number of frames. In continuous time, there is an infinite number of frames. So, you’d have to show them the number of frames as well for them to see the difference.


Ahh... you’re pulling out a variation of Zeno here. If there’s an infinite number of frames between each frame, you can’t get to the next frame right?

Actually, the moment you start looking at the infinite number of frames between two frames, by definition, you are now looking at the next frame. Just not the frame you were referring to.

I’ve already stated in this thread that existence, the universe, the cosmos is infinite. Infinity cannot “be itself”, it is not a thing, it’s an operator, a verb if it ever stopped it wouldn’t be infinity anymore. The moment it tries to stop, (and everything tries to be itself), the discrete is the only thing it can do. Not your sense of discrete, rather gibs sense of discrete.

Neither I nor gib are bothered by infinite regress of frames. You are. Like I stated before, even the Hindus (who aren’t atheists) have no problem with this as well.


Only a theist fool has no problem with actual infinites.


Really? That makes billions of theist fools then!

Which god is greater?

1.) one who never existed and then created existence from not existing

2.) a god that never began or ends

That’s a tough one!!!

I actually don’t have an answer to that.

What I do have an answer to is that neither of those gods exist!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:49 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:The difference in the two types of time is really an example of the differentiability between an abstracted continuum from a particularizational conception of segmented time.
In a cosmological abstraction, the relative time fades to the inconceivable , when the distance between two objects approaches the limits of the existence between them

When an object no longer exists in relative time between two objects, they can not be said to exist in measurable time relatively speaking.

On the level of microcosm, time likewise loses relative value

The same disconcepted relations must integrate at their limit and beyond.

Or, the uncertainty would overcome It's Self, and that is negatively tautological.( uncertainty between the infinitessible and the continuous)

That energy generated approaches, then overcomes It's own possible negation, and transforms into the highest form of energy.


English translation please.



It is beyond conception, so inscription is incredibly difficult.
However don't take that for a copout, and I will attempt a reformulation as soon as the phenomenology can be reduced to It's most appearent yet least understood simplicity.

I could start with the sudden and unforseen force, that is the subtlest , while It is essentially the most forceful .

But then I'd be laughed out of town.


However, just trying to tag along here.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7306
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:15 pm

Ecmandu,

A Christian who believes in actual infinities in physical reality believes in something that has never been observed in the cosmos.

The greatest God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:18 pm

Meno,

A true master can explain the most complicated of things to a child.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:45 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:Ecmandu,

A Christian who believes in actual infinities in physical reality believes in something that has never been observed in the cosmos.

The greatest God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality.


And here’s your narcissism again, actually, your contradiction.

You say god is the one and only forever. By definition of that, it’s impossible for a human (or any other being for that matter) to comment on god.

Just because you didn’t observe it (narcissism) means it must not be true.

Now, I’m an atheist, I’m just playing “devil’s advocate” here.

Cause requires motion. Did god invent motion? No.

But if you say that god is motion, I might take you slightly more seriously.

Do you see what I’m saying here?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:56 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Ecmandu,

A Christian who believes in actual infinities in physical reality believes in something that has never been observed in the cosmos.

The greatest God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality.


And here’s your narcissism again, actually, your contradiction.

You say god is the one and only forever. By definition of that, it’s impossible for a human (or any other being for that matter) to comment on god.

Just because you didn’t observe it (narcissism) means it must not be true.

Now, I’m an atheist, I’m just playing “devil’s advocate” here.

Cause requires motion. Did god invent motion? No.

But if you say that god is motion, I might take you slightly more seriously.

Do you see what I’m saying here?


Let’s think about god for a moment.

God is always seeing everything through everyone’s eyes. That means god fucks everyone. God fucks! Everyone! Is that the god you want? The being who fucks child slaves as pedophiles ??? Actually, by your definition of god, not only does he fuck everyone, he created it that way!

So John... sit with me for a moment here. Is that what you’d be if you were god?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby promethean75 » Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:42 am

Whenever a self professed 'philosopher' asks you to 'sit with him' at ILP, what follows is without exception like a scene from one of aristophanes' plays.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:17 am

promethean75 wrote:Whenever a self professed 'philosopher' asks you to 'sit with him' at ILP, what follows is without exception like a scene from one of aristophanes' plays.


My message is a joke to you?

My message is fucking brilliant! Your reply is the joke.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10874
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby gib » Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:37 am

JohnJBannan wrote:What don’t you get about the photon being timeless?


I get everything there is to get. I've been explaining it to you and it's obvious you're completely misunderstanding it. The timelessness of photons is a consequence of traveling at the speed of light (yes, even when they appear and disappear in a flash, they must still be traveling at the speed of light). When a thing travels at the speed of light, time is maximally dilated. That means, zero time goes by from the beginning of the travels to the end.

But here's the rub: there's only 0 time for the thing travelling. For us who are watching the photon travel across the cosmos, it still takes thousands and thousands (or millions, or billions, etc.) of years to get from beginning to end (that's why it's called relativity). Same is true for the photon appearing and disappearing in a flash. For an observer watching the photon appear and disappear, it takes time--an extremely brief period of time, but not zero.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Photons only ever exist by popping into existence and then popping out, and they do it so quickly, it's timeless--not just from their own perspective, not just from ours, but absolutely. Then I'm forced to accept it as a fact of nature--but it still doesn't make sense--appearing, existing, then disappearing? And no time goes by? Well, if that's the way the world works, I guess the world just doesn't make sense.

JohnJBannan wrote:You’re failing to appreciate the distinction between time and the indivisible unit of spacetime that creates time.


I must be, because the way you explain the distinction to me just doesn't make sense. You have me believing that your concept of this indivisible unit of spacetime is what spacetime is made of, like a wall is made of bricks, or water is made of H2O molecules. But I wouldn't say that when you divide space or time into smaller segments of space or time, they cease to be space or time. You can imagine a 1 meter cubed volume of space in your living room, right? It's a component, or building block, of the larger volume of your living room itself. Does the fact that it's a component of your living room's space mean it is not space itself? Now, it's possible that if you keep dividing time into every briefer periods, you eventually come to this fundamental unit that quantum physicists talk about. I don't see why just because it's the smallest piece it cease to be time. BUT... suppose that this smallest piece is divisible after all, but it doesn't divide into shorter periods of time but into this indivisible unit that you're thinking of--a sort of pre-time entity. Let's just say it divides into two such pieces. This seems consistent with what you've been saying--you don't get time with just one of these units but you do get time with a composite of them--so two? Ok, two it is. In this scenario, I just wouldn't have been describing it the way you have. I would have said there is a smallest unit of time which is 10^-33 seconds--and this is still time and it is not zero--but below this you get at most two of these pre-time entities which don't have a temporal duration but is still not zero because it's not a nothing. <-- If you had said this, it would have at least made some sense to me. I don't know if I would have believed it--I certainly don't think this is what scientists are saying--but we wouldn't get stuck on this point.

JohnJBannan wrote:In discrete time, there is a finite number of frames. In continuous time, there is an infinite number of frames.


I still don't get this. Why does discrete time mean there is a finite number of frames?

You must be thinking about a finite stretch of time--t0 to t1--and imagining the number of frames between t0 and t1. If time is discrete, then sure there can only be a finite number of them that fit between t0 and t1. And if time is continuous, well there are no fundamental units so you can fit as many as you want between t0 and t1. Ecmandu was right, you're pulling a Zeno.

But I'm not talking about t0 to t1; I'm talking about all of time--and remember, I'm not convinced time had a beginning, so there is no t0 (probably no t1 either). In that scenario, you can fit as many discrete units of time as you want.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9024
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:05 am

JohnJBannan wrote:Meno,

A true master can explain the most complicated of things to a child.



Yes, but the child must begin to understand the differential between 2 languages, that involves both a transcendental and an objective description in synch.

That dilutes the idea of masterhood, as Buddha tried successfully to demonstrate it simply by Zen, while allegedly Jesus failed to simulate it by the miracle of the cross.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7306
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:13 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Ecmandu,

A Christian who believes in actual infinities in physical reality believes in something that has never been observed in the cosmos.

The greatest God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality.


And here’s your narcissism again, actually, your contradiction.

You say god is the one and only forever. By definition of that, it’s impossible for a human (or any other being for that matter) to comment on god.

Just because you didn’t observe it (narcissism) means it must not be true.

Now, I’m an atheist, I’m just playing “devil’s advocate” here.

Cause requires motion. Did god invent motion? No.

But if you say that god is motion, I might take you slightly more seriously.

Do you see what I’m saying here?


Cause does not necessarily require motion. The appearance of a photon does not require motion. Acausal physics does not require motion. The appearance of the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology did not require motion.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:15 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Ecmandu,

A Christian who believes in actual infinities in physical reality believes in something that has never been observed in the cosmos.

The greatest God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality.


And here’s your narcissism again, actually, your contradiction.

You say god is the one and only forever. By definition of that, it’s impossible for a human (or any other being for that matter) to comment on god.

Just because you didn’t observe it (narcissism) means it must not be true.

Now, I’m an atheist, I’m just playing “devil’s advocate” here.

Cause requires motion. Did god invent motion? No.

But if you say that god is motion, I might take you slightly more seriously.

Do you see what I’m saying here?


Let’s think about god for a moment.

God is always seeing everything through everyone’s eyes. That means god fucks everyone. God fucks! Everyone! Is that the god you want? The being who fucks child slaves as pedophiles ??? Actually, by your definition of god, not only does he fuck everyone, he created it that way!

So John... sit with me for a moment here. Is that what you’d be if you were god?


This price for existence is small.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]