The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

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.

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.

This price for existence is small.

Pulling a Zeno? Ok. I happen to admire Zeno.

An indivisible unit of spacetime cannot be divided further. However, you seem to be starting to grasp my point.

Anyway, the idea of infinite regress is a different can of worms than indivisible units of spacetime. I have my arguments for why infinite regress is impossible, but infinite regress is irrelevant to the question of God acting in time.

Me too. Smart dude.

Then it’s either spacetime which has some amount of space and some amount of time, or it’s not spacetime but something pre-spacetime.

Note exactly what an infinite regress is. It is a logical fallacy, not an impossibility. Note the difference. A logical fallacy is simply an invalid move in logic, but the propositions and conclusions in that logical may still be true. Example: My daughter likes to bake. I have black socks. Therefore, it is July 10th. ← Obviously fallacious reasoning yet every proposition is true. The reason an infinite regress is considered a logical fallacy is because it doesn’t work to explain the phenomenon you’re trying to explain. Trying to explain the universe by saying God did it is considered a logical fallacy because it leads to an infinite regress. Saying that God did it still leaves existence to be explained because if God exists then there is still existence even before God created the universe. However, if it is noted from the beginning that the universe to be explained is part of a greater realm of existence, then saying God did it does not lead to an infinite regress because it’s already noted that we are not equating “the universe” with “all of existence”. Watching for subtle differences like this can help to identify the real infinite regresses from the fake ones, or the problematic kinds from the unproblematic kinds. I argued this to Meno above somewhere and drove the point home that I think my concept of a retro-eternal universe is not a real infinite regress, or if you like to think of it as an infinite regress, it’s not the problematic kind.

Intersting reference to conceptual versus ‘real’ connections.

The infinitely regressive becoming a contensious afterwards, literally presents a possible solution to the fallacy.

As zeno perplexed thinkers through time, it could never be satisfactorily proposed, as a particular solution, because it merely entailed a set of. of possible semantic choices.

As John has premised his narratives within the general framework of reductive simplicity, the solution may be presented within that framework, as well, Gib.

The major premise of an absolute, or infinite reduction may be pre-figured as a mathematical continuity, figuratively, in the most probable configuration: and the most probable description in an ultimately reductive math toward its subsistence -described as geometria.

However, the consensually presented alter description , of dis consist within the parameters of the nominal description; vis. The reduction to absurdity.

To draw a general inference, out of the former, can logically draw the inference that such regression is impossible, hence conclude with a propositional tenet, that such does not ’ exist’
But is this kind of inference binding?

For deterministic possibility to verify a sufficiently reason able assessment of validation , as a connective possibility, the measure of that must not preclude effective seminal validation.

In fact has MAN succeeded to overcome the Nietzchean proposition leading to an absurd situational truism?

No, not quite. The atomic clock indicates an extremely delicate balance of a fragile sustenance between the very doubt, of an uncertain and temp is balance between a transcendent, objective way we can hand a credible and willfully designed NWI to our beloved progeny, and uppermost in the minds of thoughtful people, is, the scintilla of doubt- that may not be representable to mankind , as a whole.

Until this is proved beyond any measure of reasonable doubt, the uncertainty will need constant reevaluation.

Weather AI is up to the coming task, is still an unansearrble question, and the programs of languages which may offer compatible systems, can be said with such repetitive systematically re integrated hardly driven systems, as for instance, middle men, caught between the manufacturing of products, in projecting the pleasure bodies , come into unavoidable conflicts with the Marxian epitaph of reversing satisfaction.

This, by way of the insurmountable difficulties that a pro per interpretation can present to fill the increasing widening of the gaps, which have projected a primary nihilization of the history of natural memory.
Until then, the eternal-absurd regression, can not be said to ‘not exist’, and the ultimately credible sense of the reason which can adjudicate what is sensible, beyond a reasonable sense of a reasonable man, mist be placed in an epoch of a rational context which can be made into a reasonably sensed .

Until then , the absurd is real which can overcome the reasonable, albeit with an extremely narrow and shrinking window of opportunity, that can avoid the simultaneously narrowing field of relying more on Jesus’ parables, then on Jung’s reliance on the compatabolism that a reduction to singular representations of objective presuppositions can suggestively present.

It is in the most simple forms of reasoning can provide, the devil , for the sake of argument, is presumed to be an uncreated type of innocent , but essential form of existence, until proven to be of concern, that it would have been inconceivable to prove His guilt in this matter.

The general context , that of God’s separation from Man, a presumption lead ing to the exculpary requirement of Jesus’ form of atonement, can only be the only rational way the rebuild on Jung’s suggested pan-psychic conflated pretension of simultaneous absolutely and willfully ultimate de-differentiation.

Such, is logically impossible, as such re-integration, can never absolutely destroy the grey middle area, that can be foreshadowed, by leaving even a scintilla of a trace .

Can AI, be presumed to configure such a functional analysis?

The eternal time machine must preserve the idea by the simplest of configurations, and it has been suggested that the mobius strip , as simple yet complex it is, may be the most convincing representation.

Note: the above needs sorely, an editing, to which I shall return later, since some key elements are bergsonian, and flow out from a remote inscription.
Some of which are , not, identifiable referentially, placing them into presumptive-hypothetical basis.

The non essential semantic distinctive elements consist in minor reflective bars to clarity.

That is why the contestable reference to Mowk, that the Muse is alive and reasonably held in any reductive effort, as exemplified in Sartre’s self learned man, from one of his novels ’ Nausea’

That philosophy al investigations are probable effects to preferential treatments of aesthetic, recurrence, may be the best way to reaffirm an inferentially non intentional approach, which does not give prejoritive credence to any other absolute choice to alternate reality.

leading to preferential primacy afforded to fragments.