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?
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.
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.
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.
I thought about simplicity as well.
The only ‘simple’ solution is this:
Causation is ’ all in the mind .
The difference between a caused and a non caused event, is also in the mind.
Whatever is in the mind, is an abstraction, it doesn’t ‘exist’
The what , of conscioisness, the when and where, are all in the mind of a.‘thing’ , which are all constructs,
.
So to say, to understand, and finally to know of what is the thing that exists, is all conjecture of conceptual, non sensible events, where event a do not ever happen in space time.
In fact nothing exists, since existence is a predicate that of being, without phenomenal dimensions.
Now it gets thicker , but even simpler.
That without existence is impossible , that without existence is neither caused or uncaused, because difference has nothing to do with unity or flow or.continuum , either, because they are mere concepts based on sensibility.
Finally, there is no non sensible manifestations, because such is simply a negation of the sensible.
Therefore , the non sensible is only on the mind as well.
The non sensible has to be an absolute non existence, because singular seminal existence is impossible, because there never is such .
Therefore if there is a sensible non existence , it has to be absolute, and that absolute has.to be inn The Mind, that is God’s mind.
So, a seminal non existent absolute has to exist in the mind, therefore God exists because if He didn’t , the sensible would not have it’s negative , it’s -non existent predicate , to conceive it with.
The duality of this conscious requisite , are logically tied , so only God can discern the difference between existence and non existence, between consciousness and unconscious ness.
Therefore there exists nothing that can not be predicated by nothing. .
Absolute consciousness is independent of consciousness because it needs to get the ball rolling to the point must before identification of the absolute , the consciousness of which appears sequential, and developmentally objectively sequenced.
The objective is to learn and understand the absolute objective for that development, and that is the conceptual understamding of the need to integrate and differentiate between the one and the many, the other.
So the thing is, the other is never really any other, it is always it’s self, because differentiation is the pre requisite to conscious sense of the other, and that differentiation is the result of the conceptual realization of phenomenal organization leading to Its own self integration.
Therefore ,again, GOD, or, am uncaused conception can not not exist, since if It didn’t , then it could not become conscious of it’s own existence, nor of the existence of the Other.
Existence is all there is, It is It’s own predicate.
You see, the many proofs indicate the various ways Absolute necessity requires to induce a sense , a phenomenal sense of am Absolute uncaused cause. because as.soon as a cause begins, the causal sequencing begins to make sense primarily of It’s self, .
Beyond that, there is an appearent Other, contingent on the UNCAUSED CAUSE of prephenomimal construction.
That is the contingency that determines the constructed difference between existence and phenomena, between Being (by logical necessity) and Nothingness (by sensory development)
Necessity preceeds a logical differentiation, existence has.to be an eternal continuum where the ‘gaps’ are existential markers , -stills (Parmenidies) that are constantly shuffled into various programs of possible simulated sequential connections, and the very large co-coincidental overlaps -between the very large still and the very small, simulate what sensation determines TO BE the sensible displacement of same said existential predicate.
That eternal displacement , that reshuffling of the Ansolute reservoir , the content of which is the Absolute awareness.
Logic predosppses any other contingency , therefore Chaos is only a negation of an under lying order.
Disintegration can not proceed unto an Absolute order, by token of the same sensible argument.
For if not, existence could never be one pejorative, and Absolute nothingness could become conceivable.
But it can not not become conceivable , therefore it never exists.
"You really have a knack for missing a simple point.
Something’s got to be uncaused. Something’s got to choose. Ergo, God."
The fact that a series of 'proofs have to be derived, proves the point that the most complex choices (differentiations) are basically most simple (integrations).
But the chains can’t always be derived by conscious application connecting the integrated signs inbedded in memory, shortcuts may be sensed as rationalizations.
Lack of derivation , leads to recapturing parts of bits of reasoning, therefore Your conjecture : that there must be an agency , that can bring back that sign, albeit in more general terms, underneath the lost , forgotten one.
Only God can recapture by Absolute necessity a totally lost cause, because He is that that is always a Totally Integrated, faultless (fault as being a perfectly integrated logically necessary Being in Its self , who never forgets, yet dies not miss a beat in 're-cognizing every single sign that predicates uniqueness-identifiable markers- = That You Exist= Cogito, ergo Sum.
Therefore, there was a time, when the evil genius could not usurp God’s power.
Therefore, John, You are right, but at the same token, Your fear of Absolute nothingness need not cause any unwarranted worry.
That You would even think of it, shows You are human , only human.
Again, what does continuous have to do with divisibility?
It’s more than inferred, it’s explicitly stated. But that no more counts as proof of a beginning of time than your inference that God did it counts as proof that God is real.
If time is quantized, then there would be a finite number of units of time before the creation of the universe. That means the universe began. We just don’t know the number of steps yet.
Even if time were always in frame sequences, quantification extending back infinitely does not prove the universe started, because the discretes (as you say 10^-33 seconds) would go back forever.