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.
Spacetime is not uncaused. Where did I say spacetime was uncaused? I never said that.
I don’t agree. Infinity is not a number. You are defining an infinite regress as a number. That’s wrong. An infinite regress is an idea of unending past moments of time or events.
The Cosmological Arguments give good reason to believe in God through circumstantial evidence. They establish the first premise of monotheistic belief - that God is real. That’s unbelievably important!
You may wish they would have. Before an reasonable Judge , a summary verdict is far more preferable in a case like this, than a jury of peers, since in the former, de facto analysis of God’s literal description takes place, while in the latter, de jure reasoning carries merely a preponderance of opinion, democratically speaking.
Summery judgements always carry a risk, nevertheless, literally best exemplified by Dostievsky’allegory about the priest opinion of a repetition of another Crucifiction, if He was to return.
Goodness has always been associated with the innocent, the naive, and even the uninformed and the stupid.
It is this conglomeration which is most consistent with evil.
The proof is well intentioned but not well constructed, therefore it had to be deconstructed.
Now what?
What are you talking about? I easily get to a jury with the Cosmological Arguments. I may even get a directed verdict.
Removed
for being cruel, trite and stupid.d