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

Postby JohnJBannan » Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:26 pm

gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:What don’t you get about the photon being timeless?


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.

JohnJBannan wrote:You’re failing to appreciate the distinction between time and the indivisible unit of spacetime that creates time.


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.

JohnJBannan wrote:In discrete time, there is a finite number of frames. In continuous time, there is an infinite number of frames.


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.


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

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby gib » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:14 am

JohnJBannan wrote:Pulling a Zeno? Ok. I happen to admire Zeno.


Me too. Smart dude.

JohnJBannan wrote:An indivisible unit of spacetime cannot be divided further.


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.

JohnJBannan wrote: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.


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.
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
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:30 pm

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.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7629
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:09 pm

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.
Last edited by JohnJBannan on Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:18 pm

JohnJBannan wrote: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.

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
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:31 pm

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

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:34 pm

JohnJBannan wrote: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 Hod 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.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:45 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote: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 Hod 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?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:48 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote: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 Hod 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!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:54 pm

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

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:14 pm

JohnJBannan wrote: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.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:17 pm

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.
Last edited by JohnJBannan on Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:20 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

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:18 pm

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


Photons move (time) they are not static.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:21 pm

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


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.“

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... -universe/
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:31 pm

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


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.“

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... -universe/


That’s bullshit. A photon travels at 186,287 miles per second. Very well known fact.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:47 pm

It’s not bs. It’s General Relativity. Take it up with Einstein if you don’t like it.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:07 am

JohnJBannan wrote: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!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:26 am

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote: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.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:33 am

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote: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!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:35 am

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

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:41 am

JohnJBannan wrote: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.


I just disproved it for you. The highest speed possible cannot be added to. Man, you really don’t get it, you’ve been taught a lie.

Even if you believe the lie:

Einstein proved the “special theory of relativity”

He never solved the “general theory of relativity” though he tried!

That you didn’t even know that, means you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:48 am

E=MC^2 simply means that mass has a ton of energy in it. This is proven by the atomic bomb.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:52 am

JohnJBannan wrote:E=MC^2 simply means that mass has a ton of energy in it. This is proven by the atomic bomb.


That’s funny! Why ‘squared’ instead of ‘plus 1’ or even ‘cubed’ for that matter?!?!

I didn’t think this would become a physics thread, as in “physics proves god created existence”. But for some bizarre reason, you had to go there.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:00 am

I use all tools at my disposal, including physics.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:09 am

JohnJBannan wrote:I use all tools at my disposal, including physics.


And like I just demonstrated, those tools suck.

Light is considered by physics the cosmological constant. It’s not infinite. It’s 186,000 miles per second. But because it’s considered the cosmological constant (by definition!) how can anything possibly move faster than it?!?!

Basic, basic logic!

The fastest thing in existence is thought!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11078
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan~