## 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

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:John,

Otherness is space itself. Time is patterned (conceivable) motion.

You think god really exists outside of space and time?

Spacetime is created otherness. The idea of otherness is uncaused and within the uncaused mind of God. Time is the sequential creation, destruction and re-creation of spacetime at relative rates.

God is an uncaused metaphysical reality who exists outside spacetime.

This makes no sense:

Space time is CREATED otherness BUT!!

Space-Time is part of the UNCAUSED part of gods mind!

Make a decision here!

Spacetime is not uncaused. Where did I say spacetime was uncaused? I never said that.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Magnus Anderson wrote:
JohnJBannon wrote:First off, stop couching The Beginningless Time Paradox in terms of events instead of time. Time is a real dimension of spacetime which moves events. Time is not an illusion.

I never said that time is an illusion.

What I said is that, if the universe has no beginning, it follows that the present moment is preceded by an infinite number of past moments. All of these moments are behind us, they have taken place, they are complete, finished, done.

“Infinity is not a real number, it is an idea. An idea of something without an end.“.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html

I didn't say that infinity is a real number. (And yes, infinity is an idea. But so are real numbers.)

When we say that the present moment is preceded by an infinite number of points in time, what we're saying is that the present moment is preceded by a number of points in time that is larger than every integer (and real number.)

Do you agree?

Wikipedia seems to agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Wikipedia wrote:Infinity (often denoted by the symbol $$\infty$$ or Unicode ∞) represents something that is boundless or endless, or else something that is larger than any real or natural number.

If the universe has no beginning, what follows is that the number of moments that preceded the present moment is larger than every integer. But there isn't one such number, and most importantly, only one number of that kind is inexhaustible. All others are exhaustible.

I don’t agree. Infinity is not a number. You are defining an infinite regress as a number. That’s wrong. An infinite regress is an idea of unending past moments of time or events.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

The Cosmological Arguments give good reason to believe in God through circumstantial evidence. They establish the first premise of monotheistic belief - that God is real. That’s unbelievably important!
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:The Cosmological Arguments give good reason to believe in God through circumstantial evidence. They establish the first premise of monotheistic belief - that God is real. That’s unbelievably important!

You may wish they would have. Before an reasonable Judge , a summary verdict is far more preferable in a case like this, than a jury of peers, since in the former, de facto analysis of God's literal description takes place, while in the latter, de jure reasoning carries merely a preponderance of opinion, democratically speaking.

Summery judgements always carry a risk, nevertheless, literally best exemplified by Dostievsky'allegory about the priest opinion of a repetition of another Crucifiction, if He was to return.

Goodness has always been associated with the innocent, the naive, and even the uninformed and the stupid.

It is this conglomeration which is most consistent with evil.

The proof is well intentioned but not well constructed, therefore it had to be deconstructed.

Now what?
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 6699
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Meno_ wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:The Cosmological Arguments give good reason to believe in God through circumstantial evidence. They establish the first premise of monotheistic belief - that God is real. That’s unbelievably important!

You may wish they would have. Before an reasonable Judge , a summary verdict is far more preferable in a case like this, than a jury of peers, since in the former, de facto analysis of God's literal description takes place, while in the latter, de jure reasoning carries merely a preponderance of opinion, democratically speaking.

Summery judgements always carry a risk, nevertheless, literally best exemplified by Dostievsky'allegory about the priest opinion of a repetition of another Crucifiction, if He was to return.

Goodness has always been associated with the innocent, the naive, and even the uninformed and the stupid.

It is this conglomeration which is most consistent with evil.

The proof is well intentioned but not well constructed, therefore it had to be deconstructed.

Now what?

What are you talking about? I easily get to a jury with the Cosmological Arguments. I may even get a directed verdict.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Removed

for being cruel, trite and stupid.d
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 6699
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:Continuous is made of infinite infinitesimals.

I don't believe in infinitesimals.

JohnJBannan wrote:Discrete is made of finite indivisibles. A stretched indivisible is still an indivisible. You can’t stretch an infinitesimal, because it has no finite size to stretch.

Since when did "continuous" mean divisible into infinitesimals? Divisible or not, if you can stretch it, that seems pretty continuous to me. Continuous means that the transition from one end to the other is smooth and doesn't take jumps or abrupt changes. You should see a slide, not steps. If an attempt to stretch a thing resulted in its coming apart into discrete units--like pulling on a beaded necklace--then I would say it's not continuous (and even then, it depends on if the units themselves were continuous). So I ask again: what's the difference between time as composed of consecutive discrete units that can stretch, and time as one long continuous dimension?

JohnJBannan wrote:Space is not infinite. There is no scientific proof of that. Plus, space was created by the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology.

There is no scientific proof for or against what either of us is saying. Quit bringing it in as proof of your point (the least of reasons being it will work against you when we move on to talking about God). Scientists use the word proof very sparingly. There is evidence of a big bang, but that's still a leap away from saying that time and space began with the big bang, especially since there are competing scientific theories about how the universe--time and space with it--began, the multiverse theory being one example.

And to be perfectly accurate, there is actually evidence against the idea that space and time began with the big bang. The theory that time and space began with the big bang predicts that the universe is like the surface of a 4D sphere. If so, we should be able to detect some curvature if we look really far out into space. So far, they have found no evidence of curvature. They have peered as far out into space as is technologically possible today--about 14 billion light years. If there is any curvature to the universe, the visible universe that's 28 billion light years across can only be a speck on the surface of the 4D sphere. Not looking too promising.
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

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9000
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:I don’t agree. Infinity is not a number. You are defining an infinite regress as a number. That’s wrong. An infinite regress is an idea of unending past moments of time or events.

So when you say that the number of people in the universe is infinite, you are saying nothing about the number of people in the universe?

In other words, the logical possibility that the number of people in the universe is $$10$$, $$100$$, $$1,000$$ or some other integer is still there?

It's actually possible to say that the number of people in the universe is infinite and $$10$$?

It is not the case that you are strictly sayng that the number of people in the universe is not equal to any integer, and not only that, but that it is actually larger than every integer?

Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 4434
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Continuous is made of infinite infinitesimals.

I don't believe in infinitesimals.

JohnJBannan wrote:Discrete is made of finite indivisibles. A stretched indivisible is still an indivisible. You can’t stretch an infinitesimal, because it has no finite size to stretch.

Since when did "continuous" mean divisible into infinitesimals? Divisible or not, if you can stretch it, that seems pretty continuous to me. Continuous means that the transition from one end to the other is smooth and doesn't take jumps or abrupt changes. You should see a slide, not steps. If an attempt to stretch a thing resulted in its coming apart into discrete units--like pulling on a beaded necklace--then I would say it's not continuous (and even then, it depends on if the units themselves were continuous). So I ask again: what's the difference between time as composed of consecutive discrete units that can stretch, and time as one long continuous dimension?

JohnJBannan wrote:Space is not infinite. There is no scientific proof of that. Plus, space was created by the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology.

There is no scientific proof for or against what either of us is saying. Quit bringing it in as proof of your point (the least of reasons being it will work against you when we move on to talking about God). Scientists use the word proof very sparingly. There is evidence of a big bang, but that's still a leap away from saying that time and space began with the big bang, especially since there are competing scientific theories about how the universe--time and space with it--began, the multiverse theory being one example.

And to be perfectly accurate, there is actually evidence against the idea that space and time began with the big bang. The theory that time and space began with the big bang predicts that the universe is like the surface of a 4D sphere. If so, we should be able to detect some curvature if we look really far out into space. So far, they have found no evidence of curvature. They have peered as far out into space as is technologically possible today--about 14 billion light years. If there is any curvature to the universe, the visible universe that's 28 billion light years across can only be a speck on the surface of the 4D sphere. Not looking too promising.

You think an apple is continuous? I can’t cut it in half?

It’s an obvious inference that the tiny expanded singularity was a start.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Magnus Anderson wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:I don’t agree. Infinity is not a number. You are defining an infinite regress as a number. That’s wrong. An infinite regress is an idea of unending past moments of time or events.

So when you say that the number of people in the universe is infinite, you are saying nothing about the number of people in the universe?

In other words, the logical possibility that the number of people in the universe is $$10$$, $$100$$, $$1,000$$ or some other integer is still there?

It's actually possible to say that the number of people in the universe is infinite and $$10$$?

It is not the case that you are strictly sayng that the number of people in the universe is not equal to any integer, and not only that, but that it is actually larger than every integer?

No, I am saying the number of people is unending.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

John wrote: “Spacetime is not uncaused. Where did I say spacetime was uncaused? I never said that”

Actually you did!

You stated that space and time were created by god.

Do you know what space is? Otherness

Do you know what time is? Patterned motion.

God cannot exist without either. Again, god is a DEPENDENT being, like all of us!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 10099
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Ecmandu wrote:John wrote: “Spacetime is not uncaused. Where did I say spacetime was uncaused? I never said that”

Actually you did!

You stated that space and time were created by god.

Do you know what space is? Otherness

Do you know what time is? Patterned motion.

God cannot exist without either. Again, god is a DEPENDENT being, like all of us!

Spacetime is created otherness.

You know I don’t agree with you.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:John wrote: “Spacetime is not uncaused. Where did I say spacetime was uncaused? I never said that”

Actually you did!

You stated that space and time were created by god.

Do you know what space is? Otherness

Do you know what time is? Patterned motion.

God cannot exist without either. Again, god is a DEPENDENT being, like all of us!

Spacetime is created otherness.

You know I don’t agree with you.

It’s logically impossible to exist without otherness (Something to distinguish your existence from) and it’s logically impossible to create otherness (if you couldn’t abstract otherness, you can never abstract it).
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 10099
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:John wrote: “Spacetime is not uncaused. Where did I say spacetime was uncaused? I never said that”

Actually you did!

You stated that space and time were created by god.

Do you know what space is? Otherness

Do you know what time is? Patterned motion.

God cannot exist without either. Again, god is a DEPENDENT being, like all of us!

Spacetime is created otherness.

You know I don’t agree with you.

It’s logically impossible to exist without otherness (Something to distinguish your existence from) and it’s logically impossible to create otherness (if you couldn’t abstract otherness, you can never abstract it).

The uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality must be real.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

John J Bannon wrote:No, I am saying the number of people is unending.

So when you say that the number of people in the universe is infinite, you are not saying that the number of people in the universe is not $$10$$?

Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 4434
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

The uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality must be real.

Behind Otherness is difference; that is he metaphysical cause,
but the spiritual cause lies behind that.
Difference is a particular sentiment for us. It is close to "choice" which is close to "freedom" but not a freedom from, but a freedom to --- what? Exist. But what do we do while existing? What is going on? Literally, now.

What is the sound of your breath? How does it sound like you are valuing this mighty spirit of life?

Sooooooooohh
or feeeeeeeehhhh
or lehhhhhhhh

the cause echoes in the purest of necessities.
Metaphysical cause is the reason things are the way that they have to be for existence to exist. (broad, all encompassing downward pressing cause)
Spiritual cause is not technical but simply the negation of negation, the pure overflowing cup of infinity.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 10551
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

John,

Even the metaphysical requires otherness (in the form of platonic forms). If there was no “outside of” no being, not even god could perceive it’s existence.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 10099
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Ecmandu wrote:John,

Even the metaphysical requires otherness (in the form of platonic forms). If there was no “outside of” no being, not even god could perceive it’s existence.

Triangleness is an uncaused idea in God’s uncaused mind. God’s uncaused mind is not a physical reality, but a metaphysical reality. Perception for God doesn’t depend on an “outside”. It’s mysterious. You can’t understand it, but can know it is real through circumstantial evidence via the OP.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

So to put it into philo sofic . God can be characterized as an a-priori synthetic apprehension.
That is what they asked prior to connecting neuro morphology with philosophical investigations.

How can an apple be red and green all over? How are synthetic a-priori judgments be possible? Do sense-data lead to absurd reduction?

So in order to reconnect the fractured ontology, they reverted to sensation , mostly via color apprehension.

Who watches black and white TV or vintage movies anymore?

Sure there are some who consider black and white more basic, where shadows van infer shades of differences, which apprehend a more cognitive sense of perception.

To me, that sort of projection, for projection was more a-propo in that past age, images tended to be more connected to imaginative functions , and the shadow world was more closely tied to the mysterious.

Prior images tended to collude with recognizable similar archetypal significant others, ....

They became more spatially separated , allowing wider gaps, and those allowed far greater latitude in establishing recognizable models, of both kinds, one exaggerated and blown up, the other diminished .

One larger, the other, smaller then life.

God, belonged into the nether, the ether world exceeding the smallest and the largest possible apprehension, ....

In fact He was the combination of all possible light as energy levels, He could be intuned by the White enemation , so white, that He became invisible.

The total negation of all colors, white, is the absence of any, the total darkness .

This proof , as hermetically textual , presents the negation of darkness not merely white, but totally invisible, if a comprehension of total energy levels could be represented.

' The visible and the invisible 'could shed light on the phenomenal presence of God, in ways where the continuing debate through the logical language through which God and men communicate may fail.
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 6699
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Meno_ wrote:So to put it into philo sofic . God can be characterized as an a-priori synthetic apprehension.
That is what they asked prior to connecting neuro morphology with philosophical investigations.

How can an apple be red and green all over? How are synthetic a-priori judgments be possible? Do sense-data lead to absurd reduction?

So in order to reconnect the fractured ontology, they reverted to sensation , mostly via color apprehension.

Who watches black and white TV or vintage movies anymore?

Sure there are some who consider black and white more basic, where shadows van infer shades of differences, which apprehend a more cognitive sense of perception.

To me, that sort of projection, for projection was more a-propo in that past age, images tended to be more connected to imaginative functions , and the shadow world was more closely tied to the mysterious.

Prior images tended to collude with recognizable similar archetypal significant others, ....

They became more spatially separated , allowing wider gaps, and those allowed far greater latitude in establishing recognizable models, of both kinds, one exaggerated and blown up, the other diminished .

One larger, the other, smaller then life.

God, belonged into the nether, the ether world exceeding the smallest and the largest possible apprehension, ....

In fact He was the combination of all possible light as energy levels, He could be intuned by the White enemation , so white, that He became invisible.

The total negation of all colors, white, is the absence of any, the total darkness .

This proof , as hermetically textual , presents the negation of darkness not merely white, but totally invisible, if a comprehension of total energy levels could be represented.

' The visible and the invisible 'could shed light on the phenomenal presence of God, in ways where the continuing debate through the logical language through which God and men communicate may fail.

You really have a knack for missing a simple point.

Something’s got to be uncaused. Something’s got to choose. Ergo, God.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:So to put it into philo sofic . God can be characterized as an a-priori synthetic apprehension.
That is what they asked prior to connecting neuro morphology with philosophical investigations.

How can an apple be red and green all over? How are synthetic a-priori judgments be possible? Do sense-data lead to absurd reduction?

So in order to reconnect the fractured ontology, they reverted to sensation , mostly via color apprehension.

Who watches black and white TV or vintage movies anymore?

Sure there are some who consider black and white more basic, where shadows van infer shades of differences, which apprehend a more cognitive sense of perception.

To me, that sort of projection, for projection was more a-propo in that past age, images tended to be more connected to imaginative functions , and the shadow world was more closely tied to the mysterious.

Prior images tended to collude with recognizable similar archetypal significant others, ....

They became more spatially separated , allowing wider gaps, and those allowed far greater latitude in establishing recognizable models, of both kinds, one exaggerated and blown up, the other diminished .

One larger, the other, smaller then life.

God, belonged into the nether, the ether world exceeding the smallest and the largest possible apprehension, ....

In fact He was the combination of all possible light as energy levels, He could be intuned by the White enemation , so white, that He became invisible.

The total negation of all colors, white, is the absence of any, the total darkness .

This proof , as hermetically textual , presents the negation of darkness not merely white, but totally invisible, if a comprehension of total energy levels could be represented.

' The visible and the invisible 'could shed light on the phenomenal presence of God, in ways where the continuing debate through the logical language through which God and men communicate may fail.

You really have a knack for missing a simple point.

Something’s got to be uncaused. Something’s got to choose. Ergo, God.

I thought about simplicity as well.
The only 'simple' solution is this:

Causation is ' all in the mind .
The difference between a caused and a non caused event, is also in the mind.

Whatever is in the mind, is an abstraction, it doesn't 'exist'

The what , of conscioisness, the when and where, are all in the mind of a.'thing' , which are all constructs,
.
So to say, to understand, and finally to know of what is the thing that exists, is all conjecture of conceptual, non sensible events, where event a do not ever happen in space time.

In fact nothing exists, since existence is a predicate that of being, without phenomenal dimensions.

Now it gets thicker , but even simpler.

That without existence is impossible , that without existence is neither caused or uncaused, because difference has nothing to do with unity or flow or.continuum , either, because they are mere concepts based on sensibility.

Finally, there is no non sensible manifestations, because such is simply a negation of the sensible.

Therefore , the non sensible is only on the mind as well.

The non sensible has to be an absolute non existence, because singular seminal existence is impossible, because there never is such .

Therefore if there is a sensible non existence , it has to be absolute, and that absolute has.to be inn The Mind, that is God's mind.

So, a seminal non existent absolute has to exist in the mind, therefore God exists because if He didn't , the sensible would not have it's negative , it's -non existent predicate , to conceive it with.

The duality of this conscious requisite , are logically tied , so only God can discern the difference between existence and non existence, between consciousness and unconscious ness.

Therefore there exists nothing that can not be predicated by nothing. .

Absolute consciousness is independent of consciousness because it needs to get the ball rolling to the point must before identification of the absolute , the consciousness of which appears sequential, and developmentally objectively sequenced.

The objective is to learn and understand the absolute objective for that development, and that is the conceptual understamding of the need to integrate and differentiate between the one and the many, the other.

So the thing is, the other is never really any other, it is always it's self, because differentiation is the pre requisite to conscious sense of the other, and that differentiation is the result of the conceptual realization of phenomenal organization leading to Its own self integration.

Therefore ,again, GOD, or, am uncaused conception can not not exist, since if It didn't , then it could not become conscious of it's own existence, nor of the existence of the Other.

Existence is all there is, It is It's own predicate.

You see, the many proofs indicate the various ways Absolute necessity requires to induce a sense , a phenomenal sense of am Absolute uncaused cause. because as.soon as a cause begins, the causal sequencing begins to make sense primarily of It's self, .

Beyond that, there is an appearent Other, contingent on the UNCAUSED CAUSE of prephenomimal construction.
That is the contingency that determines the constructed difference between existence and phenomena, between Being (by logical necessity) and Nothingness (by sensory development)

Necessity preceeds a logical differentiation, existence has.to be an eternal continuum where the 'gaps' are existential markers , -stills (Parmenidies) that are constantly shuffled into various programs of possible simulated sequential connections, and the very large co-coincidental overlaps -between the very large still and the very small, simulate what sensation determines TO BE the sensible displacement of same said existential predicate.

That eternal displacement , that reshuffling of the Ansolute reservoir , the content of which is the Absolute awareness.

Logic predosppses any other contingency , therefore Chaos is only a negation of an under lying order.

Disintegration can not proceed unto an Absolute order, by token of the same sensible argument.

For if not, existence could never be one pejorative, and Absolute nothingness could become conceivable.

But it can not not become conceivable , therefore it never exists.
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 6699
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Meno_ wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:So to put it into philo sofic . God can be characterized as an a-priori synthetic apprehension.
That is what they asked prior to connecting neuro morphology with philosophical investigations.

How can an apple be red and green all over? How are synthetic a-priori judgments be possible? Do sense-data lead to absurd reduction?

So in order to reconnect the fractured ontology, they reverted to sensation , mostly via color apprehension.

Who watches black and white TV or vintage movies anymore?

Sure there are some who consider black and white more basic, where shadows van infer shades of differences, which apprehend a more cognitive sense of perception.

To me, that sort of projection, for projection was more a-propo in that past age, images tended to be more connected to imaginative functions , and the shadow world was more closely tied to the mysterious.

Prior images tended to collude with recognizable similar archetypal significant others, ....

They became more spatially separated , allowing wider gaps, and those allowed far greater latitude in establishing recognizable models, of both kinds, one exaggerated and blown up, the other diminished .

One larger, the other, smaller then life.

God, belonged into the nether, the ether world exceeding the smallest and the largest possible apprehension, ....

In fact He was the combination of all possible light as energy levels, He could be intuned by the White enemation , so white, that He became invisible.

The total negation of all colors, white, is the absence of any, the total darkness .

This proof , as hermetically textual , presents the negation of darkness not merely white, but totally invisible, if a comprehension of total energy levels could be represented.

' The visible and the invisible 'could shed light on the phenomenal presence of God, in ways where the continuing debate through the logical language through which God and men communicate may fail.

You really have a knack for missing a simple point.

Something’s got to be uncaused. Something’s got to choose. Ergo, God.

I thought about simplicity as well.
The only 'simple' solution is this:

Causation is ' all in the mind .
The difference between a caused and a non caused event, is also in the mind.

Whatever is in the mind, is an abstraction, it doesn't 'exist'

The what , of conscioisness, the when and where, are all in the mind of a.'thing' , which are all constructs,
.
So to say, to understand, and finally to know of what is the thing that exists, is all conjecture of conceptual, non sensible events, where event a do not ever happen in space time.

In fact nothing exists, since existence is a predicate that of being, without phenomenal dimensions.

Now it gets thicker , but even simpler.

That without existence is impossible , that without existence is neither caused or uncaused, because difference has nothing to do with unity or flow or.continuum , either, because they are mere concepts based on sensibility.

Finally, there is no non sensible manifestations, because such is simply a negation of the sensible.

Therefore , the non sensible is only on the mind as well.

The non sensible has to be an absolute non existence, because singular seminal existence is impossible, because there never is such .

Therefore if there is a sensible non existence , it has to be absolute, and that absolute has.to be inn The Mind, that is God's mind.

So, a seminal non existent absolute has to exist in the mind, therefore God exists because if He didn't , the sensible would not have it's negative , it's -non existent predicate , to conceive it with.

The duality of this conscious requisite , are logically tied , so only God can discern the difference between existence and non existence, between consciousness and unconscious ness.

Therefore there exists nothing that can not be predicated by nothing. .

Absolute consciousness is independent of consciousness because it needs to get the ball rolling to the point must before identification of the absolute , the consciousness of which appears sequential, and developmentally objectively sequenced.

The objective is to learn and understand the absolute objective for that development, and that is the conceptual understamding of the need to integrate and differentiate between the one and the many, the other.

So the thing is, the other is never really any other, it is always it's self, because differentiation is the pre requisite to conscious sense of the other, and that differentiation is the result of the conceptual realization of phenomenal organization leading to Its own self integration.

Therefore ,again, GOD, or, am uncaused conception can not not exist, since if It didn't , then it could not become conscious of it's own existence, nor of the existence of the Other.

Existence is all there is, It is It's own predicate.

You see, the many proofs indicate the various ways Absolute necessity requires to induce a sense , a phenomenal sense of am Absolute uncaused cause. because as.soon as a cause begins, the causal sequencing begins to make sense primarily of It's self, .

Beyond that, there is an appearent Other, contingent on the UNCAUSED CAUSE of prephenomimal construction.
That is the contingency that determines the constructed difference between existence and phenomena, between Being (by logical necessity) and Nothingness (by sensory development)

Necessity preceeds a logical differentiation, existence has.to be an eternal continuum where the 'gaps' are existential markers , -stills (Parmenidies) that are constantly shuffled into various programs of possible simulated sequential connections, and the very large co-coincidental overlaps -between the very large still and the very small, simulate what sensation determines TO BE the sensible displacement of same said existential predicate.

That eternal displacement , that reshuffling of the Ansolute reservoir , the content of which is the Absolute awareness.

Logic predosppses any other contingency , therefore Chaos is only a negation of an under lying order.

Disintegration can not proceed unto an Absolute order, by token of the same sensible argument.

For if not, existence could never be one pejorative, and Absolute nothingness could become conceivable.

But it can not not become conceivable , therefore it never exists.

John said,

"You really have a knack for missing a simple point.

Something’s got to be uncaused. Something’s got to choose. Ergo, God."

The fact that a series of 'proofs have to be derived, proves the point that the most complex choices (differentiations) are basically most simple (integrations).

But the chains can't always be derived by conscious application connecting the integrated signs inbedded in memory, shortcuts may be sensed as rationalizations.

Lack of derivation , leads to recapturing parts of bits of reasoning, therefore Your conjecture : that there must be an agency , that can bring back that sign, albeit in more general terms, underneath the lost , forgotten one.
Only God can recapture by Absolute necessity a totally lost cause, because He is that that is always a Totally Integrated, faultless (fault as being a perfectly integrated logically necessary Being in Its self , who never forgets, yet dies not miss a beat in 're-cognizing every single sign that predicates uniqueness-identifiable markers- = That You Exist= Cogito, ergo Sum.

Therefore, there was a time, when the evil genius could not usurp God's power.

Therefore, John, You are right, but at the same token, Your fear of Absolute nothingness need not cause any unwarranted worry.

That You would even think of it, shows You are human , only human.
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 6699
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

JohnJBannan wrote:You think an apple is continuous? I can’t cut it in half?

Again, what does continuous have to do with divisibility?

JohnJBannan wrote:It’s an obvious inference that the tiny expanded singularity was a start.

It's more than inferred, it's explicitly stated. But that no more counts as proof of a beginning of time than your inference that God did it counts as proof that God is real.
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

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9000
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:You think an apple is continuous? I can’t cut it in half?

Again, what does continuous have to do with divisibility?

JohnJBannan wrote:It’s an obvious inference that the tiny expanded singularity was a start.

It's more than inferred, it's explicitly stated. But that no more counts as proof of a beginning of time than your inference that God did it counts as proof that God is real.

The upper limit of a quantum of time is 10^-33 seconds. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-theorists ... ation.html

If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

### Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

For a general theory yes, it may quantify, but for a special theory, it would need to qualify to be discernible . ? .
Meno_
ILP Legend

Posts: 6699
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext