## 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

JohnJBannan wrote:
gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:You think an apple is continuous? I can’t cut it in half?

Again, what does continuous have to do with divisibility?

JohnJBannan wrote:It’s an obvious inference that the tiny expanded singularity was a start.

It's more than inferred, it's explicitly stated. But that no more counts as proof of a beginning of time than your inference that God did it counts as proof that God is real.

The upper limit of a quantum of time is 10^-33 seconds. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-theorists ... ation.html

If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.

John, none of that logically follows.

Even if time were always in frame sequences, quantification extending back infinitely does not prove the universe started, because the discretes (as you say 10^-33 seconds) would go back forever.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

You missed the point. If time is quantized, there would be a finite number of units to the singularity. Hence, proof that the singularity came into existence. There would be no argument of infinitesimal regression back to the singularity never being completed.
Last edited by JohnJBannan on Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:You missed the point. If time is quantized, there would be a finite number of units to the singularity. Hence, proof that the singularity came into existence.

None of that follows John. Plank time does not imply a Big Bang.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:You missed the point. If time is quantized, there would be a finite number of units to the singularity. Hence, proof that the singularity came into existence.

None of that follows John. Plank time does not imply a Big Bang.

You missed it again. I am assuming a Big Bang. This is about infinitesimal regression to the singularity.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:You missed the point. If time is quantized, there would be a finite number of units to the singularity. Hence, proof that the singularity came into existence.

None of that follows John. Plank time does not imply a Big Bang.

You missed it again. I am assuming a Big Bang. This is about infinitesimal regression to the singularity.

Infinitesimals as objects are impossible, their hypothetical continuous expansion as a algorithm is known.

Here’s an infinitesimal as an object:

0.000... (an infinite number of zeroes) and then a 1 at the impossible end

Now, if you write an algorithm that starts and never ends (a process, not an object) then you have something like:

0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001

Etc...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

I am referring to continuous time.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:I am referring to continuous time.

Continuous time doesn’t allow for a singularity. You’ve become so desperate that you can’t even form coherent sentences to defend your position!

But have no fear! Your god, who will always violate every other beings consent besides itself (by your definition of god) is never on your side.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:I am referring to continuous time.

Continuous time doesn’t allow for a singularity. You’ve become so desperate that you can’t even form coherent sentences to defend your position!

But have no fear! Your god, who will always violate every other beings consent besides itself (by your definition of god) is never on your side.

Explain how continuous time does not permit a singularity?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:I am referring to continuous time.

Continuous time doesn’t allow for a singularity. You’ve become so desperate that you can’t even form coherent sentences to defend your position!

But have no fear! Your god, who will always violate every other beings consent besides itself (by your definition of god) is never on your side.

Explain how continuous time does not permit a singularity?

You think god created and will eventually end all matter, time and space. That’s discrete by definition, not continuous by definition. The words are antonyms.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Never heard anyone say that a beginning precludes continuous spacetime. Why do you say that?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:Never heard anyone say that a beginning precludes continuous spacetime. Why do you say that?

By definition the beginning and end of space time (which I personally think isn’t true) - then everything is discrete and not continuous.

I see what you’re trying to say though, you’re trying to say that within the context of discrete existence as a whole, the stuff in between the beginning and end is continuous. Why? The superset is defined as discrete to you, why not the rest of it be discrete as well? Why is it so important that the rest be continuous to you if you define the superset as discrete?

I find it funny, as do several people in this thread, that you’re putting all types of words into gods mouth.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:The upper limit of a quantum of time is 10^-33 seconds. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-theorists ... ation.html

Note that the article states: "A trio of theoretical physicists at the Pennsylvania State University has calculated the upper limit for the possible quantization of time..." <-- my emphasis on "possible". IOW, they still don't know. And neither do you.

It also talks about the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which you supported), which requires space and time to be smooth and continuous. This tells me they still don't know which one it is. The article presents one "possible" solution to this problem but as such it is only theoretical at this time. Which again means they don't know.

Besides, I'm not even sure I understand what a quantization of time is supposed to mean? And neither do you. For instance, saying that time is made up of chunks 10^-33 seconds long, doesn't that mean that time still goes by within that 10^-33 seconds? Exactly 10^-33 seconds worth? Imagine you had a really, really, really accurate watch that could measure time down to 10^-34 seconds. It could tell you whether that 10^-33 seconds was 1 tenth up (10^-34 seconds had gone by), half over (50^-34 seconds had gone by), 90% done (only 10^-33 seconds remaining). So it's like saying: time comes in units of 1 minute. Well, 1 minute, by definition, means that 1 minute of time is going by during those units. So what would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 1 minute consecutive chunks of time? What would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 10^-33 second consecutive chunks of time?

JohnJBannan wrote:If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.

Why does the quantization of time mean there is a finite number of units? Why can't there be an infinite number of such units?
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

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:The upper limit of a quantum of time is 10^-33 seconds. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-theorists ... ation.html

Note that the article states: "A trio of theoretical physicists at the Pennsylvania State University has calculated the upper limit for the possible quantization of time..." <-- my emphasis on "possible". IOW, they still don't know. And neither do you.

It also talks about the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which you supported), which requires space and time to be smooth and continuous. This tells me they still don't know which one it is. The article presents one "possible" solution to this problem but as such it is only theoretical at this time. Which again means they don't know.

Besides, I'm not even sure I understand what a quantization of time is supposed to mean? And neither do you. For instance, saying that time is made up of chunks 10^-33 seconds long, doesn't that mean that time still goes by within that 10^-33 seconds? Exactly 10^-33 seconds worth? Imagine you had a really, really, really accurate watch that could measure time down to 10^-34 seconds. It could tell you whether that 10^-33 seconds was 1 tenth up (10^-34 seconds had gone by), half over (50^-34 seconds had gone by), 90% done (only 10^-33 seconds remaining). So it's like saying: time comes in units of 1 minute. Well, 1 minute, by definition, means that 1 minute of time is going by during those units. So what would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 1 minute consecutive chunks of time? What would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 10^-33 second consecutive chunks of time?

JohnJBannan wrote:If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.

Why does the quantization of time mean there is a finite number of units? Why can't there be an infinite number of such units?

Gib,

According to wiki-

"General relativity becomes special relativity at the limit of a weak field. At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below, ..."

What we have come to at this stage of the argument is to qualify in simplest forms of logarithmic sequencing yo transvalue quantifiable reduction into the 'singular' logic related to Leibnitz' proof, (one cosmological among the 14)-into the limit where such proof becomes imperceptible in the second theory of relativity.

What this indicates is, a need to eliminate understanding through a limitless uncertainty, again in purely logical means.

Which begs the question of logical spatial-temporal relation, as simple as that.

The implication of this was that the idea leads to the variable question of whether the relation between the first and second theories of relativity are continuous discreet, and came to Einstein' formulation that god does not play with dice.

Im
nterjection and conception are mutually.recripocative, and finally the level of uncertainty may change the character of space time . similar to the famois cat in the box uncertainty experiment.

At the point of.singularity , all logically derived uncertainty becomes absolutely certain.

This was Cantor's ultimate uncertainty , I think with interjection into sequential gaps. On my,or perhaps on our part, I am assuming it as a conjecture.
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 7601
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Never heard anyone say that a beginning precludes continuous spacetime. Why do you say that?

By definition the beginning and end of space time (which I personally think isn’t true) - then everything is discrete and not continuous.

I see what you’re trying to say though, you’re trying to say that within the context of discrete existence as a whole, the stuff in between the beginning and end is continuous. Why? The superset is defined as discrete to you, why not the rest of it be discrete as well? Why is it so important that the rest be continuous to you if you define the superset as discrete?

I find it funny, as do several people in this thread, that you’re putting all types of words into gods mouth.

Actually, I believe it’s all discrete. I was only curious as to your logic. I like the logic btw. The beginning of spacetime itself indicates discreteness. Very good! However, an end to a finite series with a discrete beginning is not necessary because it will always be finite.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:The upper limit of a quantum of time is 10^-33 seconds. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-theorists ... ation.html

Note that the article states: "A trio of theoretical physicists at the Pennsylvania State University has calculated the upper limit for the possible quantization of time..." <-- my emphasis on "possible". IOW, they still don't know. And neither do you.

It also talks about the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which you supported), which requires space and time to be smooth and continuous. This tells me they still don't know which one it is. The article presents one "possible" solution to this problem but as such it is only theoretical at this time. Which again means they don't know.

Besides, I'm not even sure I understand what a quantization of time is supposed to mean? And neither do you. For instance, saying that time is made up of chunks 10^-33 seconds long, doesn't that mean that time still goes by within that 10^-33 seconds? Exactly 10^-33 seconds worth? Imagine you had a really, really, really accurate watch that could measure time down to 10^-34 seconds. It could tell you whether that 10^-33 seconds was 1 tenth up (10^-34 seconds had gone by), half over (50^-34 seconds had gone by), 90% done (only 10^-33 seconds remaining). So it's like saying: time comes in units of 1 minute. Well, 1 minute, by definition, means that 1 minute of time is going by during those units. So what would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 1 minute consecutive chunks of time? What would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 10^-33 second consecutive chunks of time?

JohnJBannan wrote:If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.

Why does the quantization of time mean there is a finite number of units? Why can't there be an infinite number of such units?

I think it’s an upper limit on the basic unit of time. What it means is that there is no time between units. Each unit is a discrete frame in the movie of time.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Meno_ wrote:
gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:The upper limit of a quantum of time is 10^-33 seconds. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-theorists ... ation.html

Note that the article states: "A trio of theoretical physicists at the Pennsylvania State University has calculated the upper limit for the possible quantization of time..." <-- my emphasis on "possible". IOW, they still don't know. And neither do you.

It also talks about the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which you supported), which requires space and time to be smooth and continuous. This tells me they still don't know which one it is. The article presents one "possible" solution to this problem but as such it is only theoretical at this time. Which again means they don't know.

Besides, I'm not even sure I understand what a quantization of time is supposed to mean? And neither do you. For instance, saying that time is made up of chunks 10^-33 seconds long, doesn't that mean that time still goes by within that 10^-33 seconds? Exactly 10^-33 seconds worth? Imagine you had a really, really, really accurate watch that could measure time down to 10^-34 seconds. It could tell you whether that 10^-33 seconds was 1 tenth up (10^-34 seconds had gone by), half over (50^-34 seconds had gone by), 90% done (only 10^-33 seconds remaining). So it's like saying: time comes in units of 1 minute. Well, 1 minute, by definition, means that 1 minute of time is going by during those units. So what would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 1 minute consecutive chunks of time? What would be the difference between a continuous stream of time, and a series of 10^-33 second consecutive chunks of time?

JohnJBannan wrote:If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.

Why does the quantization of time mean there is a finite number of units? Why can't there be an infinite number of such units?

Gib,

According to wiki-

"General relativity becomes special relativity at the limit of a weak field. At very small scales, such as at the Planck length and below, ..."

What we have come to at this stage of the argument is to qualify in simplest forms of logarithmic sequencing yo transvalue quantifiable reduction into the 'singular' logic related to Leibnitz' proof, (one cosmological among the 14)-into the limit where such proof becomes imperceptible in the second theory of relativity.

What this indicates is, a need to eliminate understanding through a limitless uncertainty, again in purely logical means.

Which begs the question of logical spatial-temporal relation, as simple as that.

The implication of this was that the idea leads to the variable question of whether the relation between the first and second theories of relativity are continuous discreet, and came to Einstein' formulation that god does not play with dice.

Im
nterjection and conception are mutually.recripocative, and finally the level of uncertainty may change the character of space time . similar to the famois cat in the box uncertainty experiment.

At the point of.singularity , all logically derived uncertainty becomes absolutely certain.

This was Cantor's ultimate uncertainty , I think with interjection into sequential gaps. On my,or perhaps on our part, I am assuming it as a conjecture.

I’m feeding the cat:

XVI. THE ARGUMENT FROM RANDOMNESS (BY SERKAN ZORBA)
The argument from randomness proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the perfect randomness observed in the cosmos requires an infinite intelligence we call God. The cosmos creates perfect randomness at the quantum level, where the result of an event is independent of the past and future influences. Consequently, the event is not determined by any physical cause although it transpires in our physical universe, but rather by a transcause originating beyond our phenomenal level. A timeless omniscience or transintelligence with infinite computational wherewithal is necessary, because knowledge of the past and future must really be known to truly render a correlationless behavior making sure that the same random result is not repeated over and over again. The true absolute randomness observed in nature proves the existence of an infinitely intelligent entity we call God.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

John,

We have a human conception of existence which always has beginnings.

If I’m doing any kind of math with infinities, I need to start from somewhere, some point. Maybe I start from zero and expand from there. From this point, it’s logical that people project onto god that god must start somewhere as well. Why do you take human perspective as a given for the perspective of a being that you are convinced is so much greater than our minds? Cause. Maybe god is uncaused time and space, not requiring a beginning and end like all of us do conceive of all of this.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Nature is full of beginnings. Why think that beginnings are only a human construct?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:Nature is full of beginnings. Why think that beginnings are only a human construct?

The reason I ask you these questions is:

“How can a being that’s NEVER seen a beginning even figure out what a beginning is to be able to make a beginning in the first place?”

Either it’s “mysterious” like you say (I still hold that atheism is infinitely MORE mysterious!) or god experienced a beginning that god didn’t create.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

God’s mind is uncaused. God’s knowledge of beginnings is uncaused.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:God’s mind is uncaused. God’s knowledge of beginnings is uncaused.

Gods knowledge of beginnings is definitely uncaused. No argument from me here. Beginnings are uncaused.

The idea that god is all beginnings: absurd.

Like I stated before: how can god invent otherness?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 7601
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:God’s mind is uncaused. God’s knowledge of beginnings is uncaused.

Gods knowledge of beginnings is definitely uncaused. No argument from me here. Beginnings are uncaused.

The idea that god is all beginnings: absurd.

Like I stated before: how can god invent otherness?

God doesn’t invent otherness. God’s uncaused mind knows otherness and God has the power to create otherness in physical reality.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:God’s mind is uncaused. God’s knowledge of beginnings is uncaused.

Gods knowledge of beginnings is definitely uncaused. No argument from me here. Beginnings are uncaused.

The idea that god is all beginnings: absurd.

Like I stated before: how can god invent otherness?

God doesn’t invent otherness. God’s uncaused mind knows otherness and God has the power to create otherness in physical reality.

That means otherness is outside of god. If god didn’t invent or create otherness, that means there’s something greater than god.

Here’s the deal John, I know you’re not a logitician, actually, I know you hate logic.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11029
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

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

Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

PreviousNext