The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

I don’t wave my hands - you know that. I am extremely specific and pedantic, which you repeatedly and correctly accuse me of being.

If you think my conclusion means I agree with John over gib, you’ve misunderstood Experientialism - and you’ve still not said why you don’t “believe” in it.

It’s quite simple: experience is the concrete version of what existence is in the abstract. Experience is observably Continuous Experience, and rationally it is also continuous because there are no gaps of nothingness to divide it up. Yet we routinely do divide it up into discrete experiences (rationalise it into ratios) for explanatory power - that’s what math does when it is used validly. Math gets very messy once you delve into continuous infinites - I know you appreciate that much. I side with math and physics sticking to discrete experiences for the purposes of discretely measuring phenomena in a meaningful way - that’s all I’m saying when I say “treat things in terms of finite discrete divisions of distance”. This is different from saying that math and physics treat the universe as it is, because the universe is continuous and not discrete. It’s saying that it treats the universe differently in order to extract discrete knowledge about it.

Note what I’m saying about how one shouldn’t treat the universe as a whole as a discrete experience with a beginning and an end - this makes no sense as it wouldn’t be everythingness if it was discretely bounded, “with nothing outside of it”. This is where the religious flounder and assert a greater existence outside of all existence in place of this nothingness that would otherwise be outside of a discrete universe’s “bounds”. The universe has no bounds - everythingness is continuous.
What I am saying is that to create knowledge out of continuity (about the universe with no beginning or end), one must conceptually break it down into discrete parts, which have beginnings and ends because you can conceptually work with that. What you don’t do is then apply that back to the universe as a whole because of the contradictions that I just mentioned. You have to convert it back to continuity to get back to the universe as a whole. Scaling our knowledge of discrete parts back up to some “discrete whole” is where John is fundamentally erring.

This is just another way that Experientialism makes entirely consistent sense of everything.
Why wouldn’t you “believe” in that?

Silhouette,

You keep using the term “discrete” much to my point.

Existence has a beginning and end, just like John argues.

Gib argues that it never started. I agree with gib.

I think atheism is much more mysterious than the god John always invokes.

The definition of the word “infinity” is precisely what one of his (I mean John’s) arguments rests upon. It’s unavoidable.

The problem with this discussion is that noone bothers to properly understand what the author is saying. Noone is asking him questions. Instead, everyone is merely assuming (and as a consequence, strawman attacking him.)

Silhuette said,

“But this requires the ability to perform multi-dimensional toplogy in your head, which is probably quite a bit beyond the calibre suggested by the opening post.”

I agree. The mathematicization of philosophy has to break the nominal descriptive presumptions relating to any attempt to pre position- a proof for a re-positional attempt like this. Therefore, an inversion or counter proposal has become a fitting and likely necessary model.

The Theistic/atheistic breakage still
figures in the conflated , undifferentiated world of basic modeling. What John is attempting to do is to regain an epoch(epoche) of a regression, whereby he can draw attention to the fact, that if he were unable to demonstrate the “impossibility of an unlimited to totally absolute level of regression” he would be open to the charge of severe structural damage.

That is to say, he couldn’t want to admit a problem of accepting an identifiable damage in reference to ‘God in Himself’ since that would severe damage to a personal (Das Sein) severance, and he may suffer consequential problems that befell the great philosophers, who dared thread similar grounds; but in John’s case it is an honest attempt to try to describe and interpret the problem, rather than to actually retain the momentum to reassert the claim Saint Anselm made, which has become a seriously contended probability of late.

I don’t think anyone is trying to place anyone on a downward incline and push him off the slope, its merely a showing of how strongly emotional the issue of God’s existence has tried to overcome the great 19th and 20th century’s explosion of rapid industrial progress.

Discrete is the opposite of continuous, what’s wrong with using the word?

Okay, lovely.

My point is that the universe is continuous therefore beginnings and ends don’t apply.

If you want to make useful and meaningful sense of the universe, you have to change it into something it isn’t: a collection of (discrete) parts that interact, which in turn have their beginnings and ends however we decide to define them for maximum perceived utility. This doesn’t mean the universe actually is a collection of parts, only that it’s useful to think of it that way. It’s an error to take this dissection of the universe, scale it up to the scale of the universe itself, and then speculate about what’s “outside everything”. If you make this error, at best you’ll meaninglessly conclude “nothing” is outside everything, and at worst you’ll anti-meaningfully conclude that there’s even greater existence outside of all existence. Ideally, you won’t even make that mistake in the first place, and you’ll undo your conceptual dissections (of Continuous Experience into discrete experiences) and get back to the universe as continuous - no beginning or end.

There’s literally no holes in using Experientialism like this to get to correct answers and to get to the bottom of misguided threads like this.
You’ve STILL not said why you don’t “believe” in Experientialism.

“A number larger than than every integer” is what 14 Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God rests upon?
Are you sure?

Not true. I began my contributions to this thread by thoroughly dissected his first argument line by line in ways that he’d agree with, and he hasn’t said he disagrees with the meticulous way that I did it. What he disagrees with (or rather “dislikes”) is the lack of logical consistency that I’ve pointed out results from dissecting his argument.

What I got in return was a complete ignoring of my points, or blanket claims that they don’t exist/are weak with zero further explanation, and accusations that I’m the one making blanket claims without any further explanation, which is the literal opposite of what I’ve been doing.

I went to great lengths to parse what the author is saying, and I received nothing but bad faith. This is why I’ve concluded that nothing constructive can come from this, and why I’m largely avoiding any contact with him and instead only engaging others.

So why is time discrete? Why could you not get from t1 to t2 if time were not discrete? And what does that have to do with the possibility of an infinite regress?

I’m not trying to establish proof, I’m trying to get the necessity out of your arguments about why time must have a beginning. I just don’t see a problem with a retro-eternal universe.

We don’t know that that was the beginning. Even most scientists, when they’re being honest, will admit that we don’t know that. In fact, there’s been recent evidence (or maybe it was just accepted theory) that the BB wasn’t the beginning of the universe, that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction, or that our universe exploded into existence from a parent universe.

Oh, well, since you added that third point, I guess time must have a beginning. I mean, if you stuck with only 2 points, your arguments would hold no weight whatsoever. But this third point, especially since it asserts the clarity of your paradox arguments despite my counter-arguments, settles the matter.

I get the point of your argument. I did offer a rebuttal if you care to read it. It was this: the need to traverse an eternity of time, or an infinite number of causes, is only a problem if you imagine starting from somewhere (somewhere eternally distant in the past). But the point of talking about a retro-eternal universe is to do away with any starting point. All points in the time, all events that occur therein, are just there–already in the past (relative to where you are now).

Understanding this depends on how you imagine time in the abstract. You can imagine time in a static context–such as when we plot time on a diagram–all points along the time axis “coexisting”. If this is the true state if time (and I would expect you to agree with something like this since you believe God exists in a timeless context) and our experience of time flowing by is just an illusion of subjectivity, then the problem of an eternal universe becomes the problem of an infinite (spatially) universe, which isn’t a problem at all as far as I’m concerned.

You can also imagine time in the subjective context–or dynamic context–the one in which time exists just as we experience it. But in this context, the past and future don’t exist. There is only now. Now is dynamic, ever changing, becoming the future and relegating its old states to the past. But in a context in which past and future don’t exist, what sense does it make to talk about an eternity of time OR a beginning. We’re left just talking about what kind of conceptual framework best models the past in our minds. And there’s nothing wrong with talking about a model featuring retro-eternal time. Nothing has to “traverse” all of time to get to now in a model. It’s just a picture.

They always come in 3s, don’t they?

You got it completely wrong again!

Physical reality is not continuous, i.e. comprised of infinitesimals. Physical reality is comprised of discrete indivisible units of reality.

Is that what I said? I’m not really sure. Let’s see.

The manner in which he defines the word “infinity” (the manner in which he defines it need not be “A number larger than every integer”) is what ONE of his arguments (not ALL of his arguments) rests upon.

If you wonder which one of the arguments, this one:

Note the underlied colored part. Note how he’s using the word “infinity”.

One has to know what he means when he says “infinity” before one can evaluate the validity of his argument.

The best way to figure that out is to ask him to define the word in sufficient detail. If he’s not willing to do so, then you simply ignore his argument.

Time is not continuous because time dilation proves that time can be stretched or slowed down. You can’t stretch infinitesimals. You can only add to them. You can however stretch discrete units.

There’s a big problem with an infinite regression. No scientific proof that infinities are real. NONE!

There is scientific proof of a beginning to the universe. There is NO scientific proof of a cyclic universe.

Actually, imagining a starting point in the past is a beginning point from which only a finite amount of time or causes need be traversed. I don’t see how this helps you at all.

Time is a REAL dimension of spacetime. Time is not an illusion. The block universe does not mean time is not a real dimension of spacetime.

Time is real and time dilation proves it. The past was once real and affects the present which affects the future.

I think that Silhouette is using these words (“continuous” and “discrete”) in a different way than you do (and perhaps even everyone else.) I for one have absolutely no idea what he means by those words.

Continuous means comprised of infinitesimals. Continuous means you can continuously subdivide without end. Discrete means comprised of a finite number of discrete units. Discreteness means you cannot continuously subdivide without end.

Mathematics is continuous. A number line is continuous.

Physical reality is discrete.

Yes, that’s how you and I (and other people) define those terms. But you and I and other people (except for maybe Henri Bergson) are not Silhouette.

Many people, especially atheists and non-believers, think that physical reality is continuous. This is a major misconception, but understandable in light of the fact that physics uses mathematics which it must, but mathematics is continuous. This is why it is important to understand that math is not physical reality. Some people also think that reality can be infinitely subdivided, but nothing could be further from the truth.

See it’s stuff like this that annoys me so much about the education level of this forum.

Discrete in science is the opposite of continuous: something that is separate; distinct; individual.

I mean, I use basic technical terminology and everyone is like HUHH?? WUUUT? like I’m some kind of alien for knowing how to use the correct words correctly.

My bad, I misread you specifying “one”.

Also, I’m sure you meant how John is defining infinity, but you’ve entered the fray arguing your definition of the word infinity - forgive me for inducing that you did this to assist with this definition of infinity, since you judge one of his arguments to unavoidably and precisely rest upon?

@John, if you’re reading - kindly “define infinity” for us as precisely and exhaustively as you can, if you please?

Oh did I? Are you sure? Are you sure it wasn’t you who got it completely wrong again?

Continuous i.e. “without break” means there’s no division - especially not infinite division into infinitesimals…

Again - how do you manage to be so completely backwards? I don’t get it. It’d be okay if you were aware of any potential shortcomings and if you came here so that you could learn, but you’re so goddamn sure of yourself on top of being so completely wrong that it’s insufferable.

I repeat, continuous does NOT mean comprised of infinitesimals - it means without break. No division, especially not infinite divisions. An infinitude of discrete units is exactly how the real number line is broken down. In this case you can subdivide infinitely into smaller and smaller discrete quantities, but continuity is one-ness.

And where are the gaps of nothingness between real things? It’s a continuous experience. You can artificially break it up into discrete parts to mentally model it - that’s the only way to do such a thing, but in doing so you compromise on its fundamental continuity. Even experiencing the smallest perceivable particles is a continuous experience. Beyond that it’s all mental conceptions, all the way into the quantum realm - and even there we speak of continuous wave functions that describe probability distributions.

Mathematics is not “continuous” - there is an entire branch of mathematics called “discrete mathematics”, and I contend that even with respect to the continuity of things like the real number line, one performs operations on operands that are extracted as precise discrete values. One even models continuous progressions e.g. like curves as a discrete function through differentiation. You approach this via infinitesimals, but this does not mean the final result is infinitesimal. What you approach is continuous one-ness.

I think it has to do with the fact that if the number of points between (t_1) and (t_2) is infinite that means that in order to go from (t_1) to (t_2) you must cross an infinite number of points. And you can’t do that because no matter how many points you cross, there will always be more points to cross.

I am surprised that you believe in the so-called actual or completed infinity given our exchange in that infamous thread.

But I guess you’re no longer the same Gib. You are now AN ALIEN GANGSTER.

Zeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/continuity/
“The usual meaning of the word continuous is “unbroken” or “uninterrupted”: thus a continuous entity—a continuum—has no “gaps.” We commonly suppose that space and time are continuous, and certain philosophers have maintained that all natural processes occur continuously: witness, for example, Leibniz’s famous apothegm natura non facit saltus—“nature makes no jump.” In mathematics the word is used in the same general sense, but has had to be furnished with increasingly precise definitions. So, for instance, in the later 18th century continuity of a function was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. With the abandonment of infinitesimals in the 19th century this definition came to be replaced by one employing the more precise concept of limit.

Traditionally, an infinitesimal quantity is one which, while not necessarily coinciding with zero, is in some sense smaller than any finite quantity. For engineers, an infinitesimal is a quantity so small that its square and all higher powers can be neglected. In the theory of limits the term “infinitesimal” is sometimes applied to any sequence whose limit is zero. An infinitesimal magnitude may be regarded as what remains after a continuum has been subjected to an exhaustive analysis, in other words, as a continuum “viewed in the small.” It is in this sense that continuous curves have sometimes been held to be “composed” of infinitesimal straight lines.“

Errr… thanks for confirming my point against you?

Yeah in the later 18th century you’d have been in fashion until the 19th century - as you quoted in your first paragraph. Limits being precise discrete values that came to replace infinitesimals…

The second paragraph just clarifies what is meant by infinitessimals, which I already explained.
Again, you can analyse a continuum “in the small” to be as though it was constructed of infinitesimal discretes, even though the continuum remains continuous…

Thanks again…

If the education level of this forum annoys you, perhaps you shouldn’t be on this forum.

I think it’s not a good thing to get annoyed when people tell you that they do not understand you and that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are working with idiosyncratic definitions.

My apologies but I do not really understand what you’re saying here.

I know this is written in response to John. I just want to chime in and say that this is where you lose me. What does “gaps of nothingness between real things” mean? What does “continuous experience” mean?

I understand that these terms are part of your philosophy (and I know how you call your philosophy) but I have absolutely no idea what they mean.

To make it worse, these terms don’t appear to be used by anyone other than you. I can’t Google what they mean and I can’t find other people who use them.

I know Henri Bergson (and perhaps a number of other philosophers) work (or used to work) with similar terminology but the problem is that they are quite obscure, and so, of no help.

Maybe you should make a thread of your own (if you haven’t already) where you clarify your philosophical concepts to those who are unfamiliar with them.

“Closely associated with the concept of a continuum is that of infinitesimal. An infinitesimal magnitude has been somewhat hazily conceived as a continuum “viewed in the small”, an “ultimate part” of a continuum. In something like the same sense as a discrete entity is made up of its individual units, its “indivisibles”, so, it was maintained, a continuum is “composed” of infinitesimal magnitudes, its ultimate parts. (It is in this sense, for example, that mathematicians of the 17th century held that continuous curves are “composed” of infinitesimal straight lines.) Now the “coherence” of a continuum entails that each of its (connected) parts is also a continuum, and, accordingly, divisible. Since points are indivisible, it follows that no point can be part of a continuum. Infinitesimal magnitudes, as parts of continua, cannot, of necessity, be points: they are, in a word, nonpunctiform.”

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do … 1&type=pdf