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.
So when you say that the number of people in the universe is infinite, you are not saying that the number of people in the universe is not (10)?
The uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality must be real.
Behind Otherness is difference; that is he metaphysical cause,
but the spiritual cause lies behind that.
Difference is a particular sentiment for us. It is close to “choice” which is close to “freedom” but not a freedom from, but a freedom to — what? Exist. But what do we do while existing? What is going on? Literally, now.
What is the sound of your breath? How does it sound like you are valuing this mighty spirit of life?
Sooooooooohh
or feeeeeeeehhhh
or lehhhhhhhh
the cause echoes in the purest of necessities.
Metaphysical cause is the reason things are the way that they have to be for existence to exist. (broad, all encompassing downward pressing cause)
Spiritual cause is not technical but simply the negation of negation, the pure overflowing cup of infinity.
John,
Even the metaphysical requires otherness (in the form of platonic forms). If there was no “outside of” no being, not even god could perceive it’s existence.
Triangleness is an uncaused idea in God’s uncaused mind. God’s uncaused mind is not a physical reality, but a metaphysical reality. Perception for God doesn’t depend on an “outside”. It’s mysterious. You can’t understand it, but can know it is real through circumstantial evidence via the OP.
So to put it into philo sofic . God can be characterized as an a-priori synthetic apprehension.
That is what they asked prior to connecting neuro morphology with philosophical investigations.
How can an apple be red and green all over? How are synthetic a-priori judgments be possible? Do sense-data lead to absurd reduction?
So in order to reconnect the fractured ontology, they reverted to sensation , mostly via color apprehension.
Who watches black and white TV or vintage movies anymore?
Sure there are some who consider black and white more basic, where shadows van infer shades of differences, which apprehend a more cognitive sense of perception.
To me, that sort of projection, for projection was more a-propo in that past age, images tended to be more connected to imaginative functions , and the shadow world was more closely tied to the mysterious.
Prior images tended to collude with recognizable similar archetypal significant others, …
They became more spatially separated , allowing wider gaps, and those allowed far greater latitude in establishing recognizable models, of both kinds, one exaggerated and blown up, the other diminished .
One larger, the other, smaller then life.
God, belonged into the nether, the ether world exceeding the smallest and the largest possible apprehension, …
In fact He was the combination of all possible light as energy levels, He could be intuned by the White enemation , so white, that He became invisible.
The total negation of all colors, white, is the absence of any, the total darkness .
This proof , as hermetically textual , presents the negation of darkness not merely white, but totally invisible, if a comprehension of total energy levels could be represented.
’ The visible and the invisible 'could shed light on the phenomenal presence of God, in ways where the continuing debate through the logical language through which God and men communicate may fail.
You really have a knack for missing a simple point.
Something’s got to be uncaused. Something’s got to choose. Ergo, God.