The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

You are making this more complicated than it need be. Something’s got to be uncaused or we wouldn’t be here. God is the best choice for such an uncaused being.

Perhaps, but there is a case to be had between more complicated and more simple.

Pure logic , You mentioned very early on, is a language which developed, occurs and is meant for correspondence between god and men.

I would concur, bit its only a beginning.

The whole problem with it is that men have rejected reason hundreds of years ago as a viable form of / and for proof.

Take the proof or the discissions going on right now for shadow. Ontological proof is difficult enough, whereas logic foreshadows the proof which are instrumental in trying to distinguish the levels of.conscious manifestation from higher to lower appearances-

Lower levels , ironically are displaced and transformed into the Higher levels, as they become transformed .

There are many indications of transformation, and direct experience with the sources of higher consciousness , and they should lead to the approximate situation by which the approach to the highest becomes possible. albeit seemingly against all odds.

Further more to those whose only proof can consist of material miracles, it is now the day, when the transformation can only subsist of spiritual ones.

Despair and regret should be relegated to the primal source of antiquity, where reason still made sense!

To wit: Based on a very wide broad spectrum array of reason and insight, the following defense could/should be applied here:

“Carl Jung interprets Gnosticism the way he interprets alchemy: as a hoary counterpart to his analytical psychology. As interpreted by Jung, Gnostic myths describe a seemingly outward, if also inward, process which is in fact an entirely inward, psychological one. The Gnostic progression from sheer bodily existence to the rediscovery of the immaterial spark trapped in the body and the reunion of that spark with the immaterial godhead symbolize the Jungian progression from sheer ego consciousness to the rediscovery of the unconscious within the mind and the integration of the ego with the unconscious to forge the self. For Jung, Gnostics are the ancient counterpart to present-day Jungian patients. Both constitute a psychological elite. Where most persons are satisfied with traditional means of connecting themselves to their unconscious, Gnostics and Jungians are sensi tive to the demise of those means and are seeking new ones. Where, alternatively, most other persons are oblivious to the existence of the unconscious altogether, Gnostics and Jungians are preoccupied with it. Gnostics project their unconscious onto the cosmos and are therefore striving to connect themselves to something external, not just, like Jungians, to something internal. Interpreting in Jungian terms the Gnostic myth Poimandres, I argue that Jungian psychology makes enormous sense of the myth, but not in the way that Jung envisions. Upon rediscovering his spark, the Gnostic seeks to reject his body altogether rather than to mesh the two. He does strive to reunite with the godhead, but the godhead is immateriality itself rather than, like the body, matter. Indeed, the godhead, taken psychologically, is only a projection of the unconscious onto the cosmos, so that the unconscious is thereby reuniting with itself.”

Take it, if You wish, on even it’s face value, or not, for proximate or more remote politically aligned purposes., John.

John,

Let me explain this in the simplest possible way that I can explain this to a human.

Almost every possible decision that you make in this species will send you to hell.

A zero sum consent violating reality is not divine.

We live in a hell realm.

If you’re smart, not just in this small species, but cosmically smart, as long as even a SINGLE being in all of existence is having their consent violated in some way, shape or form, you will forever regret all your memories.

You have to understand, there’s not the ‘grand leader’, we have to get all our souls together to make decisions.

Would you consent to evolution? If not, you wouldn’t exist.

Actually, that’s not true. I could easily exist without evolution. Almost every creationist (billions) on earth believe evolution is a conspiracy theory. They seem to have no problem with this. I’m an atheist. I can see more than every creationist (you included) combined

Ecmandu,

I believe evolution is true. Evolution is the only known process for creating life. If you wouldn’t consent to evolution, you couldn’t exist to withhold your consent.

I don’t deny that abiogenesis occurred. I do deny that it’s necessary for life.

Well, there is no other method of creating life but via evolution. So, your denial is hollow.

You walked right into that one! You mean god cannot exist without abiogenesis or evolution ?!?!

How hollow is my claim now? That god has to create only beings that obey evolution and abiogenesis!

God isn’t a material being subject to evolution.

How can you consent when you don’t exist?

For one, you ignored me when I said that god could create beings without evolution. Even more to the point, you claim that god always creates beings to be lesser than god forever! Sound like god has an inferiority complex! But let’s move on!

You can’t consent if you don’t exist. I have no clue why you’re asking me that question!

Ecmandu,

God is uncaused. God doesn’t need evolution to exist. All life is the result of evolution. This is the way!

You can’t complain about lack of consent when you didn’t exist to be asked.

Actually, like every possible being in existence, god needs otherness to exist. This means that god is dependent upon other uncaused being in order to exist.

You got that completely opposite. Otherness needs God to exist.

No. It factually doesn’t work that way. If there is nothing outside or inside of a being, this being cannot perceive its own existence. It’s a non existent being.

It’s an uncaused being. It doesn’t need otherness. Otherness needs it.

John also wrote: It’s an uncaused being. It doesn’t need otherness. Otherness needs it.

You’re just asserting the same thing and so am I.

Problem is, mine is a fact. Any being that has zero internal and zero external cannot exist.

Ecmandu,

That is not a fact. The Cosmological Arguments show how an uncaused cause is real and does not require otherness to exist.

Otherness is uncaused. That’s where we’re butting heads.

You cant even say it without calling it “uncaused cause”. Two words! Otherness!

Have You guys tried another spin? Caused and uncaused, like two sides of a single coin may meet somewhere, somehow?

In case of the coin, the Christ splendidly demonstrated, that we should give credence to Caesar, and to Man that, which belongs to their respective domains?

If that proposition is senseless, then primary on its respective substantial faces, they are only imprints on a piece of metal. The imprints are not real in the sense of 'something is real that was caused by the pressing of a substance against a substance.

But if the force it took to produce an image, it had to represent the image that force produced.

The metal is where the figure produced by the force becomes the image, literally.

It’s odd to say of the substance and the image that they meet somewhere, but in another sense they do.

They meet because the have never disassociated, they merely have always existed, the caused of the imprint and the uncaused of the image meet on another level.

What is that level? Is there that level other then the caused one that resulted in pressuring a force to create that image?

Is there a higher syntax within which the substantial can be included, rather then excluded?

The diamond unearthed used to be a tree, then a rock . The impression brilliance gives was literally a naturally caused process, the realization of that is devolutionary.

Can our entropic psychic process be comparable? Is our harsh insistence on anti-natural explanations which destroyed the basic reasons for our existence an undermining way below the level of that reason, and we are forced to jump into a higher mode of sense, more quickly that the substantial will allow.

We surface too quickly and we loose awareness of what it takes to build it.