The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

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.

gib,

God does not create in time. Therefore, God does not lead to infinite regress. An indivisible unit of spacetime does not have space or time. It is that which creates space and time. I told you it was weird. It doesn’t have geometry either, but creates geometry. Don’t think of it like the tiniest cube of spacetime possible. It is rather an indivisible unit of spacetime reality.

Infinite regress is impossible, because time and causation must have a beginning. See OP Beginningless Time Paradox and Beginningless Causation Paradox.

‘Create’ is a temporal word. I understand status issues. I have lower status than other posters on this board (actually almost all of them). But you’re allowed to address me as well as gib.

I get it, I know you think addressing gib makes this thread more respectable (and to some extent I don’t disagree with that)…

Ecmandu,

I have no idea who gib is and give him no preferred status. I simply didn’t want to re-post his quote because it was too long and cumbersome for me to deal with in responding to. I don’t know who anyone is here. Not a clue. Don’t care.

Causation for God is not temporal. It’s logical or metaphysical causation. It simply means that God does it or without God it would not happen.

I get what you’re trying to say John … but it just doesn’t work. ‘Cause’ and ‘create’ are temporal terms.

I’m not trying to piss you off by saying that, it’s just a simple fact.

Is a photon “caused” to exist by an excited energy state in an atom? The photon itself is timeless. Is the word “cause” inappropriate?

If photons are timeless that means they never began or end (no creation/cause necessary!). Yes, the word cause is inappropriate in that example!

Never began or end IN TIME, true. But, special consideration must be given to their appearance and disappearance which is non-temporally caused. I see nothing wrong in using the word “cause”, especially in light of the lack of alternative words to describe this process.

By analogy, you can see how a timeless photon can become part of matter which is subject to time. Likewise, an indivisible unit of spacetime can be spaceless and timeless, but become part of the larger world of spacetime. Weird stuff.

Well then, don’t use the word ‘process’ either, it’s also temporal.

See where I’m going with this?

You’re trying to argue that static makes non static.

Static is non existence. It doesn’t make anything.

A photon is timeless. And photons do make matter. So, the static can in fact make the non-static.

You’re wrong. Photons are static and photons exist.

Photons move (time) they are not static.

No. Photons are timeless.

“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. It travels from its point-of-origin to its point-of-termination: from where an interaction creates (or emits) it to where another interaction destroys (or absorbs) it. This is exactly what happens whether it’s emission/absorption, emission/reflection, a scattering interaction, or any type of interplay with another particle.“

forbes.com/sites/startswith … -universe/

That’s bullshit. A photon travels at 186,287 miles per second. Very well known fact.

It’s not bs. It’s General Relativity. Take it up with Einstein if you don’t like it.

You want to talk about Einstein?!

Sure, let’s do it!

E=MC^2! Right?

Do you know what the ‘C’ in that equation means?

It means ‘cosmological constant’. How the fuck can you square something that by definition can’t be squared ?!?

My grandfather used to travel as a job to places like area 54 and Area 51 all over the world … one thing he told me… “don’t believe any of your physics books”

I figured it out myself … E=MC^2 is crap logic!

You can square the speed of light.

The speed of light is the “cosmological constant”.

The fastest possible speed! You can’t even add anything to it! Let alone square it.

This is the problem with the general public! They can’t think! They regurgitate!

You can certainly square a number which represents the speed of light.

Anyway, no one in over a century has proven a single flaw in General Relativity.