The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

A preponderance is greater than 50.0%. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not have an assigned percentage, but it’s way less than 100% certainty.

John wrote: “no. The universe does not exist without time”

Me: that’s correct John, all time is, is patterned motion. Nothing exists without patterned motion.

John: “the universe is each frame becoming”

Me: that’s only because you desire a beginning and end to the universe because of your god bias. A universe with no beginning or end is foundationally not discrete in the macro or micro, which interferes with your conception of god in your mind.

What does that mean? I’m not sure which of my points this is aimed at. Are you objecting to my question about the universe standing still for each frame of 10^-33 seconds? What does it mean to say the universe is “becoming” for each frame?

Each frame comes to exist and then is replaced with no time in between. It’s the sequence of frames that is time.

II. THE IMPOSSIBLITY OF UNCAUSED PHYSICAL REALITY (BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The impossibility of uncaused physical reality proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the cosmos requires a transcendent cause we call God. We observe from the cosmos that physical reality is made of parts. If physical reality were uncaused, then there would be a highest number of parts physical reality could reach and there could never be cause to exceed this highest number. The calculation of this highest number of parts cannot be specifically derived from an uncaused physical reality, because an uncaused physical reality has no definitive source for such a derivation. Therefore, such a highest number of parts is impossible and hence physical reality cannot be uncaused. Because physical reality cannot be uncaused, then physical reality must have a transcendent cause we call God.

Yeah, I wouldn’t think there’d be any time in between. That’d be like saying between each frame of a film reel, there are extra frames. But my question is: what happens during each frame? Does the universe stand still? If frames in a film is the analogy we’re going with, then that conjures up an image of the scene being still (just a picture) in each frame. So if each frame in the film lasts only 10^-33 seconds in the light of the projector, then for 10^-33 seconds, the universe stands still. Then when it moves to the next frame, the universe is in a slightly different position (or slightly different arrangement, or slightly different state), and there is no smooth movement from one state to the next–the universe “jumps” from one state to the next. The fact that these frames go by so quickly coupled with the fact that the differences in the universe’s state between each frame are ever so slight, gives rises to the appearance of motion.

^ Is that what you have in mind?

Ah, the weirdness that is the universe.

The universe does not stand still for each frame. Standing still requires time. There is no time from the perspective of a frame, except its appearance moment which is an indivisible unit of spacetime and not a thing acting within time.

Then this makes no sense. You’re saying no time goes by for each frame, yet each frame is 10^-33 seconds long. Extremely short but not 0.

No. I said that each frame is an indivisible unit of spacetime. 10^-33 = 1 frame

I wish I could interject here some thing without being out of order.

Ok then, I just don’t understand what you mean by “There is no time from the perspective of a frame”.

Anyway, you still haven’t answered my question: what is happening to the universe during the 10^-33 seconds of each frame? We’re ruling out standing still. So it must be moving (or changing). What other option is there?

You’ll never be out of order to me, dear Meno… don’t let them ever make you feel so… :-$

The universe is the frame. Time is the sequence of frames. There is no time for each frame, because time is the sequence of frames - not a single frame. 10^-33 = 1 frame. Your idea of time does not apply to an indivisible unit of spacetime responsible for the creation of time. There is no underlying time for an indivisible unit of spacetime. There is simply the appearance and disappearance of the indivisible unit which we equate to 10 ^-33. Indivisible units of spacetime are weird things. The answer to your question is that the question itself is nonsensical, because time doesn’t apply to an indivisible unit of spacetime. So, “none of the above” is the answer.

For example, the photon is allegedly timeless. A photon can appear and disappear. A photon can be emitted and then absorbed. The photon does not supposedly experience time, but its appearance and disappearance is LIKE an indivisible unit of spacetime. (Note that I am only using the photon as an analogy).

I don’t know how to proceed with this. Time is required for a thing to appear and disappear. There’s an order to it: it appears first, stays a while, then disappears. The whole point of coming up with the number 10^-33 is to say the fundamental unit if time is 10^-33 seconds. That’s a non-zero amount of time that goes by. If time is meaningless at that scale, then what is it 10^-33 of?

I appreciate your confusion. First off, don’t confuse math and physical reality. 10^-33 is math leading you to assume there are smaller increments of time. Not so with an indivisible unit of spacetime. We are discussing the thing that creates time, so your fundamental temporal assumptions are inapplicable.

Time is not required for an indivisible unit of spacetime to appear and disappear. Consider the supposedly timeless photon analogy. The indivisible unit of spacetime appears and disappears, and that is what CREATES time through series. Indivisible units of spacetime are weird things.

I can’t really debate this. It doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know how something can appear and disappear without time going by. I don’t know what the 10^-33 means if not a quantity of time (that is what the originators of that number meant, yet you’re twisting it to mean something else, all the while still using it to argue for a smallest unit of time). You’re proposing this unintelligible construct and I don’t know what to do with it. So I guess I’m out.

Gib,

Another interpretation, perhaps.

Before time began, everything was still,.before the sundile, there was many a moon, signaling the coming of darkness.

People hid in caves, in fear of natural elements, The could not count the days, they were wildly unaware , they either stood their ground and fight. or, they took to flight, away from their sight of danger.

That is, until they started to codify repeatably, over the course of many centuries worth of millennia.

The sense of stillness, appeared as perpetually motionless, they lived in an eternal frame of shameless space.

Nowedays it is almost impossible to slow6 an ever increasing loss of interplay between slices of still, life.

We can not even visualize a time when aesthetics ruled reality as a still-life.

And that stillness changed to modern art, and movement was born

Deuchamp"s ‘Lady fed ending the Stairs’ lead to cubism’s literal representation of Picasso’s grotesque abhorrent reality of twisted portraits of almost unimaginable lack of stollness, where most movement had to be filled in , in the spaces that could no longer be sensed.

Motivations with objective realities could no longer represent a willfully considered plan of action.

The mystical continuum
lost its being-reson’ d’etre.

This might help you:

What does it mean to be an indivisible unit of spacetime?

FYI. This is a quite legitimate physics question.

It just means ether. Ether has always been posited by physics, this is a quite legitimate physics answer.

Ether is an old version of the quantum field. But, that does not explain what it means to be an indivisible unit of spacetime. The vast array of these units is the quantum field, but what does it mean - this indivisible unit of spacetime?

“The exciting thing about their result is that the energy lost through this mechanism corresponds to the dark energy observed in the Universe today for this free constant of order unity! “

physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2 … s.html?m=1