The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:41 pm

THE FOURTEEN COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

By John J. Bannan (5/24/2020)

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1. God is the creator of the cosmos. The cosmological arguments prove the existence of God by demonstrating the necessity of a Creator for the cosmos. The cosmological arguments offer good reason through circumstantial evidence taken from the nature of the cosmos itself to believe in God. The following is a listing and explanation of all the known cosmological arguments for the existence of God:

I. THE DICHOTOMY OF EXISTENCE
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The dichotomy of existence proves the existence of God by demonstrating the necessity of an uncaused Creator with the power to create any or all of the infinite potentials for physical reality to the fullest extent logically possible under everythingness. In terms of the uncaused, there are only two possibilities. The first is the uncaused reason for the existence of all physical reality. The second is the uncaused absence of any reality called absolute nothingness. These two are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of all logical possibilities forming an abstract metaphysical dichotomy of existence. Because each side of the dichotomy is uncaused, there can be no cause for either of the two being real. Rather, one side is real and the other is not real without reason or necessity. Moreover, an uncaused thing does not have parts, because it would otherwise be caused by those parts. Because an uncaused thing does not have parts, an uncaused thing cannot be destroyed because destruction demands the disassociation of parts. As a result, the side of the dichotomy that is real can never be destroyed, and the other side that is not real can never become real.

Because physical reality can differ in the most minute way logically possible from another potential physical reality, there is no good reason to believe that the uncaused reason for the existence of all physical reality could not also create that potential physical reality. Because this uncaused reason can create this potential physical reality, then it can also create another potential physical reality differing from the former potential physical reality in the most minute way logically possible. Repeating this ad infinitum, this uncaused reason must be capable of creating any or all of the infinite logically possible physical realities called everythingness. Because potential physical realities can be created, there must be a reason for the existence of physical reality and the creation of any or all infinite potential physical realities. This reason must be uncaused, because the creation of any or all physical realities is contingent on this reason which leaves this reason without anything else to cause it.

Because the creation of less than everything that is logically possible is itself a logical possibility falling within everythingness, then this uncaused reason must necessarily be able to decide what to create out of the infinite possibilities for physical reality. This uncaused reason must have knowledge of all the infinite potentials for physical reality, the power to create any or all of these potentials, and a presence to control, sustain, alter or destroy any such creation. Moreover, this uncaused reason must have the greatest decision-making ability logically possible in order to be able to create up to the fullest extent of everythingness. We call this uncaused real side of the dichotomy of existence God.

II. THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
The first cause argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that all causes and effects in the cosmos must ultimately derive from a very first cause we call God. In the cosmos, we observe that for every cause, there is an effect. We also observe that every effect is itself a cause for a subsequent effect. Like a line of falling dominos, the first falling domino causes the fall of the second domino, and the second falling domino causes the fall of the third domino. The cosmos unfolds as a series of causes and effects over time.

Because an infinite regress in time of causes and effects is impossible, there must be a very first cause of the cosmic series of causes and effects. We observe that cause and effect in the cosmos follows an order where A causes B, and B causes C, whether the intermediate cause B is only a single cause or several causes. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there is no cause A, there will be no ultimate cause C, nor any intermediate cause B. But, if an infinite regress in time of causes and effects were possible, there would not be a first cause, and so neither would there be an ultimate cause, nor any intermediate cause. Therefore, the existence of the series of causes and effects over time in the cosmos necessitates a very first cause for the beginning of the series.

The very first cause in the beginning of the cosmic series of causes and effects over time must not itself be caused. If it were caused, then regress would continue backward in time infinitely, which is impossible. Moreover, the very first cause cannot be self-created. It is impossible for a thing to cause itself, because it would have to exist prior to itself. Therefore, the very first cause must itself be uncaused. We call this uncaused first cause God.

Because God is uncaused, God cannot be made of parts. A thing that is made of parts is caused by those parts. God being uncaused cannot Himself be caused by parts. We call this principle that God is not made of parts – divine simplicity. Divine simplicity is a mystery, because we cannot imagine a thing without parts. However, because we know a very first cause is necessary for the cosmos to be created, and we know that this very first cause cannot be made of parts, we know that divine simplicity is real. An ancient classical philosophical truth known as “ex nihilo nihil fit” states that nothing comes from nothing – or that you can’t get something from nothing. Because nothingness cannot create the cosmos, an uncaused very first cause of the cosmos is necessary to which we give the name God.

III. THE FIRST ORDER ARGUMENT
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The first order argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the cosmos must have had an initial order created by an uncaused orderless cause we call God. We observe from the cosmos that everything has an order. This order is the relative position or arrangement of things in physical reality at any given moment in time. We observe that this order is caused by an antecedent order, and that this antecedent order is caused by an earlier antecedent order. Because an infinite regress in time of antecedent orders is impossible, there must be a very first order.

We observe that order in the cosmos follows a pattern where order A causes order B, and order B causes order C, whether the intermediate order B is only a single order or a series of consecutive orders. Now to take away order A is to take away order B. Therefore, if there is no order A, there will be no ultimate order C, nor any intermediate order B. But, if an infinite regress in time of consecutive orders were possible, there would not be a first order, and so neither would there be an ultimate order, nor any intermediate order. Therefore, the existence of the series of consecutive orders over time in the cosmos necessitates a very first order for the beginning of the series. This first order requires an orderless cause, because a first order cannot come from nothing. A cause without order is a cause without parts, and therefore must be uncaused because otherwise its parts would be its cause. Because all physical realities possess an order, this orderless cause cannot be any sort of physical reality. We call this uncaused orderless immaterial cause of first order God.

IV. THE BEGINNINGLESS TIME PARADOX
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The beginningless time paradox proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the beginning of time itself must have an uncaused timeless cause we call God. If time in the cosmos had no beginning, then there would be an infinity of prior moments in time before the arrival of the present moment. An infinity of prior moments of time could never be fully traversed, because there would always be a prior moment in time that had not yet been traversed because infinity is unending. If all prior moments in time are not fully traversed, then paradoxically the present moment in time could never arrive. Because the present moment in time does arrive, then time in the cosmos must have had a beginning. Because time must have had a beginning, then time must have been caused to begin from something besides nothing because nothing cannot cause anything.

The cause of the beginning of time not having time for its own cause must therefore be uncaused. Moreover, the cause of time itself cannot be something subject to time, because the existence of anything subject to time is contingent on the existence of time. The beginning of time itself cannot have a physical explanation, because all physical explanations would be subject to time. Accordingly, there must be an uncaused immaterial explanation for the beginning of time itself we call God.

V. THE BEGINNINGLESS CAUSATION PARADOX
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The beginningless causation paradox proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the beginning of causation itself must have an uncaused immaterial cause we call God. If causation in the cosmos had no beginning, then there would be an infinite regression of causation exhausting all possible causes. However, if causation were infinite, then causation could not become exhausted. Therefore, causation cannot be infinite, but must have had a beginning.
The cause of the beginning of causation not having a cause for its own beginning must therefore be uncaused. The beginning of causation itself cannot be a physical explanation, because all physical explanations would be caused. Accordingly, there must be an uncaused immaterial cause for the beginning of causation we call God.

VI. THE PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
The prime mover argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that all motion in the cosmos must ultimately be derived from an unmoved mover we call God. We observe that in the cosmos some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another. Things move when potential for motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential for motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be in both potentiality and actuality in the same respect simultaneously. If both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another respect. Therefore, nothing can move itself.

Each thing in motion is moved by something else. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go onto infinity, because then there would be no first mover. Without a first mover, there would be no movement at all, because all subsequent movers move only inasmuch that they are moved by the first mover. For example, the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this we call God.

VII. THE NECESSARY BEING ARGUMENT
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
The necessary being argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that there must be some being we call God that exists out of His own necessity in order for contingent beings to exist in the cosmos. We observe that in the cosmos things come and go into being called contingent beings. Every being is a contingent being, because objects in the cosmos come into being and pass away. Indeed, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist. Therefore, it is impossible for these always to exist. Consequently, there could have been a time when no things existed.

If there were a time when no things existed, there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now. Such an absurd result undermines the assumption that all beings are contingent. Therefore, not every being is a contingent being. There must be some being which exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. We call this necessary being God.

VIII. THE ARGUMENT FROM COMPOSITE PARTS
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The argument from composite parts proves the existence of God by demonstrating that an uncaused singular non-composite we call God is necessary for the existence of all composites in the cosmos. We observe from the cosmos that all composites are caused by their parts. Causation itself is the formation of a composite from parts in physical reality. The cosmos itself is a composite made of parts consisting of each moment in time with its physical reality. We also observe that composites themselves are made of composites. However, a composite cannot be made without parts, and because more than one part is a composite, a single part which causes all composites must be real because composites cannot come from nothing. That single part which causes all composites must be an uncaused non-composite, because parts would otherwise cause it to be a composite. Because all physical reality forms a composite with spacetime, then the single uncaused non-composite cannot be any sort of physical reality. We call this single uncaused immaterial non-composite God.

IX. THE ARGUMENT FROM TIME
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The argument from time proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the existence of time requires an uncaused timeless cause we call God. Time is the creation, destruction and re-creation of physical reality at the smallest scale at relative rates. Because nothing comes from nothing, the cause of time cannot be nothing. Rather, the cause of time must have a cause outside of time. This cause of time must also remember the prior order, placement and time flow of physical reality in order to re-create physical reality at every moment in time. This cause of time not having time for its own cause must therefore be uncaused. However, the cause of time itself cannot be something subject to time, because the existence of anything subject to time is contingent on the existence of time. There are no physical explanations for the beginning of time itself, because all physical explanations would be subject to time. We call this uncaused timeless immaterial cause of time God.

X. THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(BY WILLIAM LANE CRAIG)
The Kalam cosmological argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the cosmos had a beginning caused by a personal agent that transcends spacetime we call God. We observe from the cosmos that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. The cosmos began to exist. Therefore, the cosmos has a cause for its existence. The cosmos began to exist, because an actual infinite cannot exist. A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite. Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist.

Actual infinities that neither increase or decrease in the number of members they contain would result in absurd consequences, if they were to exist in reality. For example, a library with an infinite number of books would not be reduced in size at all by the removal of a specific number of books (short of all of them). Or, before the present event could occur the event immediately prior to it would have to occur. But, before that event could occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and so on ad infinitum. One gets driven back and back into the infinite past, making it impossible for any event to occur. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have occurred, which is absurd.

The collection of historical events is formed by successively adding events, one following another. The events are not temporally simultaneous, but occur over a period of time as the series continues to acquire new members. Even if an actual infinite were possible, it could not be realized by successive addition. In adding to the series, no matter how much this is done, even to infinity, the series remains finite and only potentially infinite. One can neither count to nor traverse the infinite.

If something has a finite past, its existence has a cause. The cosmos has a finite past. Therefore, the cosmos has a cause of its existence. Because spacetime originated with the cosmos and therefore has a finite past, the cause of the existence of the cosmos must transcend spacetime. Because the cause of the cosmos’ existence transcends spacetime, no scientific explanation in terms of physical laws can provide a causal account of the origin of the cosmos. Because no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the cosmos, then the cause must be a personal agent. If the cause were an eternal, nonpersonal, mechanically operating set of conditions, then the cosmos would exist from eternity. Because the cosmos has not existed from eternity, the cause must be a personal agent we call God who chooses freely to create an effect in time.

XI. THE ARGUMENT FROM SUFFICIENT REASON
(BY GOTTFRIED LEIBNIZ)
The argument from sufficient reason proves the existence of God by demonstrating that an explanation for the existence of the cosmos is necessary, which must be a transcendent God who has within His own nature the necessity of existence. We observe from the cosmos that there must be an explanation, or sufficient reason, for anything that exists. The explanation for whatever exists must lie either in the necessity of its own nature or in a cause external to itself. A sufficient reason for the existence of the cosmos cannot be another contingent thing (and on into infinity), because to explain the existence of any contingent thing by another contingent thing lacks a sufficient reason why any contingent thing exists. The explanation of the existence of the cosmos must lie in a transcendent God, because the cosmos does not have within its own nature the necessity of existence and God does.

XII. THE ARGUMENT FROM ABDUCTION
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The argument from abduction demonstrates that something must be uncaused and the best explanation is an uncaused metaphysical reality we call God. We observe that in the cosmos something has got to be uncaused, otherwise there would be nothing. It is impossible that physical reality is uncaused. Any aspect of physical reality claimed to be uncaused can be eliminated as impossible or ultimately caused, including but not limited to infinite regress, actual infinities, self-creation, time travel, eternality in time, timelessness, and acausal physics. Therefore, the best explanation that remains is an uncaused metaphysical reality we call God.

XIII. THE ARGUMENT FROM GRADATION OF BEING
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
The argument from gradation of being proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the existence of all things requires as their cause a maximum being we call God. We observe from the cosmos that there is a gradation to be found in physical reality. Some physical things are better or worse than others. Predications of degree require reference to the uttermost case. For example, a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection. We call this God.

XIV. THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
The argument from design proves the existence of God by demonstrating that non-intelligent natural things must be directed in their purposes by a supernatural intelligent being we call God. We observe from the cosmos that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But, as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligent. Therefore, some intelligent being is real by whom all natural things are directed to their end. We call this intelligent being God.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:25 pm

John!! I’m so excited you’re back!!

You might remember me under the username “commentary”!

I’ve grown a lot since then.

I’m still an atheist. It’s not that I don’t believe in gods: I’ve seen their VAST powers firsthand!

I do not believe in THEE god!

The reason for this is that there’s only one property of god that every being cares about: Omni-benevolence

I developed a system called “non-zero sum hyper-dimensional mirror realities attached to our individual desire matrices”, that is Omni-benevolence and actually works!! To prove that all past and present gods are all false gods!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:32 pm

Yes, I remember you.

I am not ready to look at your theory yet, however.

I have spent the last five years developing this list of Cosmological Arguments, however. They will give you more trouble than you can handle. :lol:
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:34 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:Yes, I remember you.

I am not ready to look at your theory yet, however.

I have spent the last five years developing this list of Cosmological Arguments, however. They will give you more trouble than you can handle. :lol:


John, you shouldn’t be so cocky!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:47 pm

I like to motivate my challengers.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:48 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:I like to motivate my challengers.


And I love that about you!

Welcome back to ILP!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:06 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:I like to motivate my challengers.


And I love that about you!

Welcome back to ILP!


So John, I have to let you know...

James S. Saint is not here with us anymore...

He most likely died. Sorry to break that to you so bluntly.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:07 pm

That’s sad.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby promethean75 » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:09 pm

Omg James is not dead. He's transformed into a state of pure affectance.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3607
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:14 pm

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

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:25 pm

As far as I’m concerned ILP, John is a celebrity on these boards, so treat him like the royalty he deserves!

He spent 5 years to make this post ... understand that level of dedication!

I always thought John was super-nice and super-awesome
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:33 pm

That’s nice of you to say!
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:47 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:That’s nice of you to say!


Well... let’s not get ahead of ourselves here! Like old times... do you want to debate me?

I’ll keep it congenial.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:52 pm

Of course, I will debate you and everyone else!
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:02 am

JohnJBannan wrote:Of course, I will debate you and everyone else!


I love it!

So here’s the deal John...

Let’s not start easy.

The only Omni-State that anyone in existence cares about is:

Omni-Benevolence

Nobody cares about the other ones!

Now, as you stated in our prior thread (which I thought was brilliant!) “our suffering in this life may not compare the the sufferings god can wrought upon us” (so we shouldn’t complain)....

Absolutely true by the way!!

The question I pose you then... could it be even better?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:05 am

Why do you think God is not omnibenevolent?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:12 am

JohnJBannan wrote:Why do you think God is not omnibenevolent?


Because it’s possible to create an existence where nobody’s consent is ever violated!

Pretty simple.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:13 am

Are you sure about that?

Do you believe in evolution?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:18 am

JohnJBannan wrote:Are you sure about that?

Do you believe in evolution?


Why not? But, like I stated before, if god has the powers to make life worse than this at will (borrowing one of your quotes from 5 years ago) then god certainly has the power (even given evolution) to make it better, right?

Or not right?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:22 am

Depends on the extent to which God interferes with evolution. Evolution is the process by which humanity is created and that process creates a great deal of suffering. Why don’t you blame evolution for human suffering?
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:27 am

JohnJBannan wrote:Depends on the extent to which God interferes with evolution. Evolution is the process by which humanity is created and that process creates a great deal of suffering. Why don’t you blame evolution for human suffering?


I’m an atheist John, who was hit by a freight train by the spiritual world 12 years ago! I was dragged into the spirit world “kicking and screaming”

I know gods exist. I’ve seen their VAST powers directly!

But what about THEE god? No. Such a being has not been born yet.

So that’s where I’m coming from in this debate.

Do you mean that it’s impossible for god to create evolution without involuntary suffering?

Is that your stance?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:29 am

Yes, that’s right.

Read #1 of OP. Understand the idea of everythingness.

God’s power to create is uncaused. That means that God has no choice over the building blocks for the universe.
Last edited by JohnJBannan on Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:36 am

JohnJBannan wrote:Yes, that’s right.


Well, let me tell you a story then!

When you look into a mirror, you see a non-sentient reflection.

What is a hyper-dimensional mirror?

A fully reflected immersive reality!

It’s impossible to even hurt a microbe, a plant or an atom... because they are all reflected from platonic (eternal) forms as templates.

Now, in your current “mindsphere”, you think we must suffer to evolve on someone else’s terms besides our own terms over the course of infinite life. This is factually not true

Comment and ask more!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:38 am

God’s power to create is uncaused. That means that God must use the building blocks He has. Read #1 and understand everythingness.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Jun 02, 2020 12:43 am

JohnJBannan wrote:God’s power to create is uncaused. That means that God must use the building blocks He has. Read #1 and understand everythingness.


I just gave you the building blocks god has at disposal, they actually exist and are better than this world life.

So let me ask you this again:

Since you obviously believe god can always make life worse, is it against your belief that god can make life better?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11059
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: paagmlds