The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

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.

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.

John said,

"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.

The upper limit of a quantum of time is 10^-33 seconds. phys.org/news/2020-06-theorists … ation.html

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.

For a general theory yes, it may quantify, but for a special theory, it would need to qualify to be discernible . ? .

John, none of that logically follows.

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.

You missed the point. If time is quantized, there would be a finite number of units to the singularity. Hence, proof that the singularity came into existence. There would be no argument of infinitesimal regression back to the singularity never being completed.

None of that follows John. Plank time does not imply a Big Bang.

You missed it again. I am assuming a Big Bang. This is about infinitesimal regression to the singularity.

Infinitesimals as objects are impossible, their hypothetical continuous expansion as a algorithm is known.

Here’s an infinitesimal as an object:

0.000… (an infinite number of zeroes) and then a 1 at the impossible end

Now, if you write an algorithm that starts and never ends (a process, not an object) then you have something like:

0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001

Etc…

I am referring to continuous time.

Continuous time doesn’t allow for a singularity. You’ve become so desperate that you can’t even form coherent sentences to defend your position!

But have no fear! Your god, who will always violate every other beings consent besides itself (by your definition of god) is never on your side.

Explain how continuous time does not permit a singularity?

You think god created and will eventually end all matter, time and space. That’s discrete by definition, not continuous by definition. The words are antonyms.

Never heard anyone say that a beginning precludes continuous spacetime. Why do you say that?

Your words, not mine.

By definition the beginning and end of space time (which I personally think isn’t true) - then everything is discrete and not continuous.

I see what you’re trying to say though, you’re trying to say that within the context of discrete existence as a whole, the stuff in between the beginning and end is continuous. Why? The superset is defined as discrete to you, why not the rest of it be discrete as well? Why is it so important that the rest be continuous to you if you define the superset as discrete?

I find it funny, as do several people in this thread, that you’re putting all types of words into gods mouth.