## 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

JohnJBannan wrote:An indivisible unit of spacetime that is destroyed, and then re-created, has no spacetime in the “gap” between the destruction and re-creation, because the spacetime was destroyed before re-creation. The lack of spacetime in the “gap” means spacetime appears continuous, but is not because each spacetime slice is indivisible.

John,

It seems resolution between significance and insignificance becomes the very limit through which we can understand God, man, and ManGod. That triple partition , that alluded to by Ec previously, may correspond to Your initial point.

But that is the point: they , space time's gap can't in any event, distinguish between before and after the event, therefore space time it's self can not be assumed to be either, as an infinitely regressive continuum or, it's negation.

The level of cosmic uncertainty would need to find an exit from a nominally defined box, and create a plurality , or else the state You described a-priori, that of a total and absolute disintegration , would/ could understandingly give shivers on any ones spine.

At this 'point' , if we were ably to affront it such, would/could a vindication for both: Atheism and Theism, and that is why ALL cosmological arguments end in stale.mate.

This is probably why Christ said, " Blessed are those, who can not see, yet believe."
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

The before and after can be distinguished in terms of causation and the arrow of time. The “gap” is not absolute nothingness, because God would still exist.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

JohnJBannan wrote:The before and after can be distinguished in terms of causation and the arrow of time. The “gap” is not absolute nothingness, because God would still exist.

John, you know about binary I assume.

There’s actually a base called unary. It still needs some representation of zero! It still needs either spaces (otherness) or the enter button (to start a new line - again, otherness) if you use spaces and new lines, and zeroes and ones, it’s actually in base 4, not binary!

Just like even unary needs a different procedure, god needs otherness, god is DEPENDENT upon it! God is a dependent being!

‘Binary’ as people wrote it in computer code is actually base 4.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

JohnJBannan wrote:The before and after can be distinguished in terms of causation and the arrow of time. The “gap” is not absolute nothingness, because God would still exist.

That makes sense only with an unsensed criteria of an implicit causation in tandem with an explicit one.

For this to occur, or, to imply a causal sequencing, albeit unsensible-not to confuse with insensible, the same near to the Absolutely both to concur,
In simultanity is a sine quo non matter of fact.

That actuality have to run concurrently and conspatially, and if so, that becomes arguable defenitionally , but not conceptually/ structurally, except by the mode demonstrated: vis affected and not effected causal definitions.

Have I followed Your intrinsically shadowed argument as well, for surely a limited return (to Thomism) implicates a totally projected form of naive realism, that may have run it's course, in need for at least a partially differentiated limit to the reduction.

If agreed progress(ion) to this limit, then on all other basis, I can not but not concur.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

No, God does not cause in time. God’s cause is logical - not temporal - causation. God is timeless. Don’t forget your God 101. You clearly don’t like the concept of an uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality. You’re constantly analyzing it in terms of the physical ignoring and presuming its non-existence. The OP gives you the reasons why you shouldn’t ignore it.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

No of course not, however the digital problem is an effect of andnl has bearing on the connections , the analogies , the dialogues , and all the semantic/a posteriori ---a priori differentiation that connect (existentialism with empiricalism).

The idea that the developmemt of the
logic system is tantamount and anachronistic with the Objective development of logic with developmental anatomy is long standing and consists of a above mentioned lobes through which the cerebrum context operates synthetically , synchronistocally as trait gainers.

The logic internal and external systems of logic have to parallel and conflate periodically to make sense of Creative processes which indicate the simultaneous objective reason behind Creation as a result of textual and contextual elements.
The textual logic may be contemoranious winthin the mind of God, without, which causation , as per extrinsic, seemingly senseless logic can manifest.

This is why the medulla obligate , the synapses mediate functionally and simultaneously.

Therefore, the logically uncaused mind of God, has to insure an eternal , intended continuum, with nexus that is both textually induced, and reduced toward the particular existential epoche.

The literal subtext are reformed into the figurative subjects, as per appearent accidents, such as the Revelation, the apple striking Newton's head, all 'accidental' to pedicure the changing Covenant that befell Man, is his morphology was won't to ready itself from representative reflection ( mirroring) through cognitive simulation through the context , to eventual enlightenment .

Narcissus' guilt was symbolized inti a release to a seminal flower: .
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

Meno_ wrote:No of course not, however the digital problem is an effect of andnl has bearing on the connections , the analogies , the dialogues , and all the semantic/a posteriori ---a priori differentiation that connect (existentialism with empiricalism).

The idea that the developmemt of the
logic system is tantamount and anachronistic with the Objective development of logic with developmental anatomy is long standing and consists of a above mentioned lobes through which the cerebrum context operates synthetically , synchronistocally as trait gainers.

To continue

Logic comes from God’s uncaused mind and uncaused power to create.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

Silhouette wrote:Okay.

Well I thought you were bringing up your definition of infinity ("A number larger than than every integer") and subsequently claiming the definition of this word "is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon" because you wanted to help John out with this definition of infinity, so as to get to the bottom of this argument of his. A crude assumption on my part - of course.

Does that make sense now?

It makes perfect sense.

As you are probably aware by now, I do not think that's how John defines infinity. That's merely how I define it. I think that John defines it in Sense A. Here is what I mean by Sense A:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195793&start=500#p2769185

Magnus Anderson wrote:If the meaning of the word "infinity" is captured by the contradictory statement "A number greater than every number (including itself)" (Sense A) then one cannot visit an infinite number of points because regardless of how many points one visits there is still more points to visit.

Perhaps noone realized it but in that post of mine I argued against John's proof number four: The Beginningless Time Paradox.

I think that the following is an accurate paraphrase of a part of his argument:

> If time has no beginning, it follows that the number of events that took place before the present day is equal to a number that is larger than every number (including itself.)

Note that I am replacing his use of the word "infinity" with "a number that is larger than every number (including itself)".

I believe the above is a non-sequitur. If the universe has no beginning, what follows is that the number of events that took place before the present day is a number larger than every integer. A number larger than every number (including itself) is a number larger than every integer but it's not the only number of that kind. In other words, there are different kinds of infinities. One of them can't be exhausted i.e. reduced to zero (and it's actually a contradiction in terms.)

Basically, what I am saying is that he's committing a fallacy known as false dichotomy.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 4722
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

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

JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:No of course not, however the digital problem is an effect of andnl has bearing on the connections , the analogies , the dialogues , and all the semantic/a posteriori ---a priori differentiation that connect (existentialism with empiricalism).

The idea that the developmemt of the
logic system is tantamount and anachronistic with the Objective development of logic with developmental anatomy is long standing and consists of a above mentioned lobes through which the cerebrum context operates synthetically , synchronistocally as trait gainers.

To continue

Logic comes from God’s uncaused mind and uncaused power to create.

Yes but the atheistic forms of causation have been upended by the lack of substantive reasons why the Thetic forms of creation have not been transformed by the Second Covenant, because sans that, the road of salvation will obliterate the Creation It's self , along with It's author.

Is that what You are weary of?

I do not share that fear, because of the former attended to.

Why? God's Covenant absolutely verified the complete integration into a Perfect Unity, as configured within the ancient symbol of the Trinity.

Such can not be a literal description, and can only be sustainable through the annals of the ages, through the Sacred Mysteries.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

JohnJBannan wrote:Time is not continuous because time dilation proves that time can be stretched or slowed down. You can’t stretch infinitesimals.

I don't believe in infinitesimals.

JohnJBannan wrote:You can however stretch discrete units.

Then doesn't that make the discrete units continuous? What then is the difference between a series of consecutive discrete units of time and one long continuous stretch of time?

JohnJBannan wrote:There’s a big problem with an infinite regression. No scientific proof that infinities are real. NONE!

We've been over this.

You know what else has no scientific proof? GOD!

JohnJBannan wrote:There is scientific proof of a beginning to the universe.

I might as well say: no there isn't!

But I'd prefer to address the reasoning behind the assertion. Care to do me the same favour?

JohnJBannan wrote:Actually, imagining a starting point in the past is a beginning point from which only a finite amount of time or causes need be traversed. I don’t see how this helps you at all.

What part of don't imagine a starting point did you not understand?

JohnJBannan wrote:Time is a REAL dimension of spacetime. Time is not an illusion. The block universe does not mean time is not a real dimension of spacetime.

That's fine and dandy with me. So then you're invoking the static picture of time. It's like a 4th dimension akin to the spatial dimensions. Therefore, there should be no problem understanding it as infinite in both directions just like space.

JohnJBannan wrote:Time is real and time dilation proves it.

Time dilation doesn't prove a thing, except that things slow down the faster they move through space relative to an observer. If you don't have time, you still have motion and change.

JohnJBannan wrote:The past was once real and affects the present which affects the future.

Yes, it was once real--but back then we called it the present--once it becomes the past, it's only a memory. Cause and effect, change in general, can be understood as always in the present. It is the mechanism that governs change and how it unfolds.
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: 9035
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

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

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Okay.

Well I thought you were bringing up your definition of infinity ("A number larger than than every integer") and subsequently claiming the definition of this word "is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon" because you wanted to help John out with this definition of infinity, so as to get to the bottom of this argument of his. A crude assumption on my part - of course.

Does that make sense now?

It makes perfect sense.

As you are probably aware by now, I do not think that's how John defines infinity. That's merely how I define it. I think that John defines it in Sense A. Here is what I mean by Sense A:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 0#p2769185

Magnus Anderson wrote:If the meaning of the word "infinity" is captured by the contradictory statement "A number greater than every number (including itself)" (Sense A) then one cannot visit an infinite number of points because regardless of how many points one visits there is still more points to visit.

Perhaps noone realized it but in that post of mine I argued against John's proof number four: The Beginningless Time Paradox.

I think that the following is an accurate paraphrase of a part of his argument:

> If time has no beginning, it follows that the number of events that took place before the present day is equal to a number that is larger than every number (including itself.)

Note that I am replacing his use of the word "infinity" with "a number that is larger than every number (including itself)".

I believe the above is a non-sequitur. If the universe has no beginning, what follows is that the number of events that took place before the present day is a number larger than every integer. A number larger than every number (including itself) is a number larger than every integer but it's not the only number of that kind. In other words, there are different kinds of infinities. One of them can't be exhausted i.e. reduced to zero (and it's actually a contradiction in terms.)

Basically, what I am saying is that he's committing a fallacy known as false dichotomy.

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. Second, “infinity” is an idea which means unending. “Infinity” is not an actual number.

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

The Beginningless Time Paradox says that if an infinite regress of time were unending, then the present moment could never arrive. Because the present moment does arrive, then time must have had a beginning. The consequence is that the cosmos had a beginning, and therefore, a creator.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

Meno_ wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:No of course not, however the digital problem is an effect of andnl has bearing on the connections , the analogies , the dialogues , and all the semantic/a posteriori ---a priori differentiation that connect (existentialism with empiricalism).

The idea that the developmemt of the
logic system is tantamount and anachronistic with the Objective development of logic with developmental anatomy is long standing and consists of a above mentioned lobes through which the cerebrum context operates synthetically , synchronistocally as trait gainers.

To continue

Logic comes from God’s uncaused mind and uncaused power to create.

Yes but the atheistic forms of causation have been upended by the lack of substantive reasons why the Thetic forms of creation have not been transformed by the Second Covenant, because sans that, the road of salvation will obliterate the Creation It's self , along with It's author.

Is that what You are weary of?

I do not share that fear, because of the former attended to.

Why? God's Covenant absolutely verified the complete integration into a Perfect Unity, as configured within the ancient symbol of the Trinity.

Such can not be a literal description, and can only be sustainable through the annals of the ages, through the Sacred Mysteries.

Why are you bringing the Trinity into this debate? The Trinity is a revealed mystery that does not impact the Cosmological Arguments. What exactly is your point?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Time is not continuous because time dilation proves that time can be stretched or slowed down. You can’t stretch infinitesimals.

I don't believe in infinitesimals.

JohnJBannan wrote:You can however stretch discrete units.

Then doesn't that make the discrete units continuous? What then is the difference between a series of consecutive discrete units of time and one long continuous stretch of time?

JohnJBannan wrote:There’s a big problem with an infinite regression. No scientific proof that infinities are real. NONE!

We've been over this.

You know what else has no scientific proof? GOD!

JohnJBannan wrote:There is scientific proof of a beginning to the universe.

I might as well say: no there isn't!

But I'd prefer to address the reasoning behind the assertion. Care to do me the same favour?

JohnJBannan wrote:Actually, imagining a starting point in the past is a beginning point from which only a finite amount of time or causes need be traversed. I don’t see how this helps you at all.

What part of don't imagine a starting point did you not understand?

JohnJBannan wrote:Time is a REAL dimension of spacetime. Time is not an illusion. The block universe does not mean time is not a real dimension of spacetime.

That's fine and dandy with me. So then you're invoking the static picture of time. It's like a 4th dimension akin to the spatial dimensions. Therefore, there should be no problem understanding it as infinite in both directions just like space.

JohnJBannan wrote:Time is real and time dilation proves it.

Time dilation doesn't prove a thing, except that things slow down the faster they move through space relative to an observer. If you don't have time, you still have motion and change.

JohnJBannan wrote:The past was once real and affects the present which affects the future.

Yes, it was once real--but back then we called it the present--once it becomes the past, it's only a memory. Cause and effect, change in general, can be understood as always in the present. It is the mechanism that governs change and how it unfolds.

Continuous is made of infinite infinitesimals. 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.

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

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

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

Removed
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

John said,

"Why are you bringing the Trinity into this debate? The Trinity is a revealed mystery that does not impact the Cosmological Arguments. What exactly is your point?"

I disagree here , the Cosmological arguments recepricately impact with the Trinity, because the Trinity and the 'Substance' of the transsubstantiation
are directly effect the reason for the Cosmological argument, in the first place.
The prediction of "substantial" arguments, by definition, infer a mystical treatment which necessarily corresponds with it.

It is not an analogical necessity which bring light to such seemingly simple ideas, but the complexity of mirroring of said representation that are involved in their ' reflection'.

Until, for some it's an incorrigible state that can be best described as through a glass, darkly.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

Meno_ wrote:John said,

"Why are you bringing the Trinity into this debate? The Trinity is a revealed mystery that does not impact the Cosmological Arguments. What exactly is your point?"

I disagree here , the Cosmological arguments recepricately impact with the Trinity, because the Trinity and the 'Substance' of the transsubstantiation
are directly effect the reason for the Cosmological argument, in the first place.
The prediction of "substantial" arguments, by definition, infer a mystical treatment which necessarily corresponds with it.

It is not an analogical necessity which bring light to such seemingly simple ideas, but the complexity of mirroring of said representation that are involved in their ' reflection'.

Until, for some it's an incorrigible state that can be best described as through a glass, darkly.

I have made no reference to the Trinity or subsistent forms in the OP.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:John said,

"Why are you bringing the Trinity into this debate? The Trinity is a revealed mystery that does not impact the Cosmological Arguments. What exactly is your point?"

I disagree here , the Cosmological arguments recepricately impact with the Trinity, because the Trinity and the 'Substance' of the transsubstantiation
are directly effect the reason for the Cosmological argument, in the first place.
The prediction of "substantial" arguments, by definition, infer a mystical treatment which necessarily corresponds with it.

It is not an analogical necessity which bring light to such seemingly simple ideas, but the complexity of mirroring of said representation that are involved in their ' reflection'.

Until, for some it's an incorrigible state that can be best described as through a glass, darkly.

There is no mystical aspect to my arguments in the OP.

Cosmological arguments concern with substantial proofs, which admittedly are not infinitely regressive,
primae facie, in fact, their negative, as in film-still: with epochs best described by Sartre et al.- they ( the arguments) intrinsically deal with the mirrored rationale as to what substance, if any, they may conceal, within their logical framework.

There is no mystery in the aspects presented, it is strictly a logical representation in terms of graduated
interpretation unto modes of re presentation

Reflection can develop conscious representation, or it may not be a matter for development, but only for a symmetrical heuristic hermetic textual
reflection

More than likely, the latter.

If that is all that is intended, than it is merely a tautology, or

Without the mysteries, logical demonstrations conflate to shift them toward simulated substantive signs.

In other words without substantive meanings , logical proofs for God, become mere definitely formal exercises which can not signify with a postmodern hermenitical presentation.

That is why such a view would need to subscribe to a spatio-temporal simultanity.

That can only be done by God, again a dwfinitionally connected continuum (alpha-omega).

The mystery having been exhausted, there remains no contextual epoche , to signal an unsubstantiated reduction.

So the Cosmological arguments fail, in essence.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
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:John said,

"Why are you bringing the Trinity into this debate? The Trinity is a revealed mystery that does not impact the Cosmological Arguments. What exactly is your point?"

I disagree here , the Cosmological arguments recepricately impact with the Trinity, because the Trinity and the 'Substance' of the transsubstantiation
are directly effect the reason for the Cosmological argument, in the first place.
The prediction of "substantial" arguments, by definition, infer a mystical treatment which necessarily corresponds with it.

It is not an analogical necessity which bring light to such seemingly simple ideas, but the complexity of mirroring of said representation that are involved in their ' reflection'.

Until, for some it's an incorrigible state that can be best described as through a glass, darkly.

There is no mystical aspect to my arguments in the OP.

Cosmological arguments concern with substantial proofs, which admittedly are not infinitely regressive,
primae facie, in fact, their negative, as in film-still: with epochs best described by Sartre et al.- they ( the arguments) intrinsically deal with the mirrored rationale as to what substance, if any, they may conceal, within their logical framework.

There is no mystery in the aspects presented, it is strictly a logical representation in terms of graduated
interpretation unto modes of re presentation

Reflection can develop conscious representation, or it may not be a matter for development, but only for a symmetrical heuristic hermetic textual
reflection

More than likely, the latter.

If that is all that is intended, than it is merely a tautology, or

Without the mysteries, logical demonstrations conflate to shift them toward simulated substantive signs.

In other words without substantive meanings , logical proofs for God, become mere definitely formal exercises which can not signify with a postmodern hermenitical presentation.

That is why such a view would need to subscribe to a spatio-temporal simultanity.

That can only be done by God, again a dwfinitionally connected continuum (alpha-omega).

The mystery having been exhausted, there remains no contextual epoche , to signal an unsubstantiated reduction.

So the Cosmological arguments fail, in essence.

Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God Prove an uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality. There is no logical necessity that such an uncaused reality exist in spacetime. Rather, it is the logical cause of spacetime.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

John,

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

You think god really exists outside of space and time?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

John said,

"Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God Prove an uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality. There is no logical necessity that such an uncaused reality exist in spacetime. Rather, it is the logical cause of spacetime."

So the logical cause of space time that is that is what is insubstantial, that is tantamount with God's will.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

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.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

Meno_ wrote:John said,

"Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God Prove an uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality. There is no logical necessity that such an uncaused reality exist in spacetime. Rather, it is the logical cause of spacetime."

So the logical cause of space time that is that is what is insubstantial, that is tantamount with God's will.

God’s uncaused mind and power to create physical reality.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher

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

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

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!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

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

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.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 4722
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

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

JohnJBannan wrote:
Meno_ wrote:John said,

"Cosmological Arguments for the existence of God Prove an uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality. There is no logical necessity that such an uncaused reality exist in spacetime. Rather, it is the logical cause of spacetime."

So the logical cause of space time that is that is what is insubstantial, that is tantamount with God's will.

God’s uncaused mind and power to create physical reality.

Ok that far. But that uncaused mind, Who can communicate to Man logically , I suppose to best understand-to be understood, failed phenomenally.

The proof was not understood, and the history of philosophy failed to confirm it or confirm to it.

Factually, the proof should have turned men's heart into faith, and even the Second Covenant and subsequent Godly sacrifice, ( which confirms Cantor's and Nietzhe's attempt to interject & extract meaning through that miniscule nonsense aptly analogies -scintilla of evidence, (( the mysteries and the occasional miracles)) : did not confirm God's detached logic to advance His existence.

So a proof , which proposes to prove God's existence does nothing more then reestablish a representation of a noumina, that may be intuited by some like the hermits and saints and disciples .

The scholastic proof failed miserably, and the road to faith is littered by victims who retrospectively may be called rebels without a cause.

Literally, an uncaused cause cries out in the desert.-Absalom, absurdum!

As it stands, cosmology without an ontology, is like a archaic desert, that while it may, it is correct, and offers a very widely cast net of prophetic viability, fails to sustain God's credo, at least in the restricted sense of Western cultural history.

The failure does not mean that the day of reckoning may not come, but as history so often continuously proves: it will be put down as another excercise to try to differentiate between coincidence and preminating foregone conclusion based on mystical experience.

So John, You may have convinced me, but the others who have buried an ancient Truism, only history can attest to those glimmers of enlightment.

At that hour, when what is written to happen does, no one except a simulated intelligence will be able to be testament to the written word.
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
breathless

Posts: 7623
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext