The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

Nature is full of beginnings. Why think that beginnings are only a human construct?

The reason I ask you these questions is:

“How can a being that’s NEVER seen a beginning even figure out what a beginning is to be able to make a beginning in the first place?”

Either it’s “mysterious” like you say (I still hold that atheism is infinitely MORE mysterious!) or god experienced a beginning that god didn’t create.

God’s mind is uncaused. God’s knowledge of beginnings is uncaused.

Gods knowledge of beginnings is definitely uncaused. No argument from me here. Beginnings are uncaused.

The idea that god is all beginnings: absurd.

Like I stated before: how can god invent otherness?

Interjection of sacredness:

images.app.goo.gl/AxnojFudXLWYM2ug9

God doesn’t invent otherness. God’s uncaused mind knows otherness and God has the power to create otherness in physical reality.

That means otherness is outside of god. If god didn’t invent or create otherness, that means there’s something greater than god.

Here’s the deal John, I know you’re not a logitician, actually, I know you hate logic.

God is uncaused. God’s uncaused mind and uncaused knowledge is God. It’s not greater than God.

Otherness is greater than every being in existence!

Your exact quote: “god doesn’t create otherness” “but god knows otherness”

God doesn’t create what god knows?

John, let me be blunt to you. No being in all of existence exists without otherness. God included.

God has uncaused knowledge and uncaused power to create otherness in physical reality. God does not need physical reality to exist.

That’s not true. Space is defined as “otherness”. Time is defined as “patterned motion“. God cannot exist without either of those.

Space is defined as spacetime or the quantum field. Time is defined as a real dimension of spacetime. God creates spacetime.

John replied to ecmandu saying this to John:

“Space is defined as “otherness”. Time is defined as “patterned motion“. God cannot exist without either of those.”

My definitions are perfect John. Yours are barely legible…

My definitions are scientifically acceptable. Your’s aren’t.

My definitions are self evidently true.

Quantum (whatever you’re trying to say here (just looks like a mash of words to me to make it sound intelligent and true)) anyways ‘quantum’ is a subset of otherness. Otherness is exactly what space is, there is no other possible solution to that definition.

My definition of time is also perfect. Patterned motion. Again, it’s self evidently true. If motion has no pattern, no being can perceive that motion. Since the motion can be perceived, it’s obviously patterned in some form.

Again, god cannot exist without otherness, god cannot exist without patterned motion. God is dependent on these, these are not dependent upon god.

Why would discreteness prove a beginning to the Universe?

I just have to laugh that you’re avoiding my last post.

Anyways to answer this question. You’re the one in this thread who declared that the universe was discrete. Not me. Not gib. Both of us pointed out that even if existence is composed of digital rather than analogue that it could still go back forever.

Too bad. Thought you were on to something there.

‘Something’ to you, meaning, defending an indefensible god concept you have in your head.

Of course, in the real world, I am on to something.

Between the units? As in, between each frame? I wouldn’t think there is any time between consecutive chunks of time regardless of quantization or not (that’s what consecutive means).

So during each frame, the universe stands still? And then when it moves to the next frame, every particle “leaps” to its next position?

By “upper limit”, I assume these units could be shorter, but it couldn’t be much longer.

In any case, this just comes across to me as an idea. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. Even if it’s true, I don’t see why it requires a “first frame”.