The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

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.

Ecmandu,

Otherness is clearly not uncaused. It is impossible for otherness to first create order. Can’t happen.

out of order, in sure, but I am compelled.

John said,

“Otherness is clearly not uncaused. It is impossible for otherness to first create order. Can’t happen.”

Why is it impossible,? Nothing is impossible for God.!

Human consciousness is caused by the brain. The universe pre-existed human consciousness. I do not find human level consciousness a persuasive answer for both material, temporal and degree limitations. An uncaused thing cannot be explained because causes are explanations. So, the uncaused cause has no middle ground, because it is inexplicable.

God is not otherness. Otherness is the contrast inherent in all physical reality.

Again, why can’t God be Otherness , as well! I do not think that this van be disproved.

Contrast? Between what and what?

Contrast on both levels, yes, but a delimitation will not work.

It’s similar to saying, the cosmos is based on circular impression therefore tautology is a valid form of expression.

That is what I was angling at to paraphrase Jesus re. the Caesar unscripted coin.

John,

You really don’t understand the most basic logic in all of existence!

If there is not internal and/or external, the object/being is non existent. That’s the definition of something that doesn’t exist (no otherness). I’m not even talking physical here, simply spiritual.

It’s ironic that the most basic logic in all of existence is rejected by someone presumably trying to use logic.

Thing is… you abandoned logic when the discussion got real for you!

How? Through the magic of creation ex nihilo?

Is this something you witnessed or an idea you believe?

The only thing we experience, and the only thing whose existence can be demonstrated, is human consciousness.

This applies also to physical energy, given the 1st law of thermodynamics.

PG