The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

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: .

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

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

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.

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.

I don’t believe in infinitesimals.

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?

We’ve been over this.

You know what else has no scientific proof? GOD!

I might as well say: no there isn’t! :teasing-neener:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.“.
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.

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?

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.

Removed

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.

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.

John,

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

You think god really exists outside of space and time?

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

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.

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.