The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

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.

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.

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.

God’s existence is an independent truth. Whether you think God is bad is irrelevant.

Oooh, why didn’t you say so?!

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.

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?

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.

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.

Only a theist fool has no problem with actual infinites.

English translation please.

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!

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.

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.

Meno,

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.