The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

John,

Let me explain this in the simplest possible way that I can explain this to a human.

Almost every possible decision that you make in this species will send you to hell.

A zero sum consent violating reality is not divine.

We live in a hell realm.

If you’re smart, not just in this small species, but cosmically smart, as long as even a SINGLE being in all of existence is having their consent violated in some way, shape or form, you will forever regret all your memories.

You have to understand, there’s not the ‘grand leader’, we have to get all our souls together to make decisions.

Would you consent to evolution? If not, you wouldn’t exist.

Actually, that’s not true. I could easily exist without evolution. Almost every creationist (billions) on earth believe evolution is a conspiracy theory. They seem to have no problem with this. I’m an atheist. I can see more than every creationist (you included) combined

Ecmandu,

I believe evolution is true. Evolution is the only known process for creating life. If you wouldn’t consent to evolution, you couldn’t exist to withhold your consent.

I don’t deny that abiogenesis occurred. I do deny that it’s necessary for life.

Well, there is no other method of creating life but via evolution. So, your denial is hollow.

You walked right into that one! You mean god cannot exist without abiogenesis or evolution ?!?!

How hollow is my claim now? That god has to create only beings that obey evolution and abiogenesis!

God isn’t a material being subject to evolution.

How can you consent when you don’t exist?

For one, you ignored me when I said that god could create beings without evolution. Even more to the point, you claim that god always creates beings to be lesser than god forever! Sound like god has an inferiority complex! But let’s move on!

You can’t consent if you don’t exist. I have no clue why you’re asking me that question!

Ecmandu,

God is uncaused. God doesn’t need evolution to exist. All life is the result of evolution. This is the way!

You can’t complain about lack of consent when you didn’t exist to be asked.

Actually, like every possible being in existence, god needs otherness to exist. This means that god is dependent upon other uncaused being in order to exist.

You got that completely opposite. Otherness needs God to exist.

No. It factually doesn’t work that way. If there is nothing outside or inside of a being, this being cannot perceive its own existence. It’s a non existent being.

It’s an uncaused being. It doesn’t need otherness. Otherness needs it.

John also wrote: It’s an uncaused being. It doesn’t need otherness. Otherness needs it.

You’re just asserting the same thing and so am I.

Problem is, mine is a fact. Any being that has zero internal and zero external cannot exist.

Ecmandu,

That is not a fact. The Cosmological Arguments show how an uncaused cause is real and does not require otherness to exist.

Otherness is uncaused. That’s where we’re butting heads.

You cant even say it without calling it “uncaused cause”. Two words! Otherness!

Have You guys tried another spin? Caused and uncaused, like two sides of a single coin may meet somewhere, somehow?

In case of the coin, the Christ splendidly demonstrated, that we should give credence to Caesar, and to Man that, which belongs to their respective domains?

If that proposition is senseless, then primary on its respective substantial faces, they are only imprints on a piece of metal. The imprints are not real in the sense of 'something is real that was caused by the pressing of a substance against a substance.

But if the force it took to produce an image, it had to represent the image that force produced.

The metal is where the figure produced by the force becomes the image, literally.

It’s odd to say of the substance and the image that they meet somewhere, but in another sense they do.

They meet because the have never disassociated, they merely have always existed, the caused of the imprint and the uncaused of the image meet on another level.

What is that level? Is there that level other then the caused one that resulted in pressuring a force to create that image?

Is there a higher syntax within which the substantial can be included, rather then excluded?

The diamond unearthed used to be a tree, then a rock . The impression brilliance gives was literally a naturally caused process, the realization of that is devolutionary.

Can our entropic psychic process be comparable? Is our harsh insistence on anti-natural explanations which destroyed the basic reasons for our existence an undermining way below the level of that reason, and we are forced to jump into a higher mode of sense, more quickly that the substantial will allow.

We surface too quickly and we loose awareness of what it takes to build it.

Ecmandu,

Otherness is clearly not uncaused. It is impossible for otherness to first create order. Can’t happen.

out of order, in sure, but I am compelled.

John said,

“Otherness is clearly not uncaused. It is impossible for otherness to first create order. Can’t happen.”

Why is it impossible,? Nothing is impossible for God.!