The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

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

I don’t believe in infinitesimals.

Since when did “continuous” mean divisible into infinitesimals? Divisible or not, if you can stretch it, that seems pretty continuous to me. Continuous means that the transition from one end to the other is smooth and doesn’t take jumps or abrupt changes. You should see a slide, not steps. If an attempt to stretch a thing resulted in its coming apart into discrete units–like pulling on a beaded necklace–then I would say it’s not continuous (and even then, it depends on if the units themselves were continuous). So I ask again: what’s the difference between time as composed of consecutive discrete units that can stretch, and time as one long continuous dimension?

There is no scientific proof for or against what either of us is saying. Quit bringing it in as proof of your point (the least of reasons being it will work against you when we move on to talking about God). Scientists use the word proof very sparingly. There is evidence of a big bang, but that’s still a leap away from saying that time and space began with the big bang, especially since there are competing scientific theories about how the universe–time and space with it–began, the multiverse theory being one example.

And to be perfectly accurate, there is actually evidence against the idea that space and time began with the big bang. The theory that time and space began with the big bang predicts that the universe is like the surface of a 4D sphere. If so, we should be able to detect some curvature if we look really far out into space. So far, they have found no evidence of curvature. They have peered as far out into space as is technologically possible today–about 14 billion light years. If there is any curvature to the universe, the visible universe that’s 28 billion light years across can only be a speck on the surface of the 4D sphere. Not looking too promising.

So when you say that the number of people in the universe is infinite, you are saying nothing about the number of people in the universe?

In other words, the logical possibility that the number of people in the universe is (10), (100), (1,000) or some other integer is still there?

It’s actually possible to say that the number of people in the universe is infinite and (10)?

It is not the case that you are strictly sayng that the number of people in the universe is not equal to any integer, and not only that, but that it is actually larger than every integer?

You think an apple is continuous? I can’t cut it in half?

It’s an obvious inference that the tiny expanded singularity was a start.

No, I am saying the number of people is unending.

John wrote: “Spacetime is not uncaused. Where did I say spacetime was uncaused? I never said that”

Actually you did!

You stated that space and time were created by god.

Do you know what space is? Otherness

Do you know what time is? Patterned motion.

God cannot exist without either. Again, god is a DEPENDENT being, like all of us!

Spacetime is created otherness.

You know I don’t agree with you.

It’s logically impossible to exist without otherness (Something to distinguish your existence from) and it’s logically impossible to create otherness (if you couldn’t abstract otherness, you can never abstract it).

The uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality must be real.