How can God not exist

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

It's either a loop; or infinitely backwards and forwards has infinite gradients. The only way to solve beyond what we have empirical perception of is to rationalize in this case what happened to cause the beginning of the forces of nature.

Perhaps dimension started the forces of nature. I can see forces of nature being conditional to the actual dimensions of the cosmos. And does dimension require a beginning to the mind, or does it just require something outside the box of dimension itself, or does dimension imply the box being sort of inversed upon itself, (I can't think of a better way of putting it). It would imply no need for an outside the box, simply that dimension creates itself, nearly like its underlying "ly" a loop.

Quote "universe exists as an effect, therefore it must have a cause"

Somthingness, is create from nothingness.

So the cause is nothingness, for without nothingness, somthingness could not exist.

"nothingness" has no chararistic's, function's, physical form, mental form, ect. It is the absolute oppisite of somthingness, therefore it cannot be defined in any way shape or form, or it would be created in a mental form, therefore it would no longer be absolute oppisite of somthingness.

So nothingness dose not exist within are existance for that very fact of, it dose not have a physical, mental form, or any physical or mental chararictic's or function's with anything els in any way shape or form within are existance.

So nothingness is still a "thing" but it's a "thing" that's out side our box.

It seem's like "nothingness" is one of the key factor's in the cause that has made the effect of "somthingness".

(This seem's why within the "bible" it was spoken that "god" had made light from nothing) Or how I would put it, "God" had made somthingness from nothingness, but without nothingness, somthingness would not have an absolute oppisite within infinity to coinside with.

(also the cause of a "god" existing would be the the "god" saying it exist's therefore it would exist)

But are existance was caused by "nothingness" existing, and the dualism system of infinit coinsiding absolute and non-absolute oppisite's.

Hence, there are meany thing's that have a hand in the effect we call are universe.

But even tho people where told the answer, it most likly would never quelch there thirst for the answer...

It is cause it is, cause I say it is, therefore it exist's as is.

(also finding the answer would never solve all are physical problem's we face within this existance...cause the answer only exist's in mental form, lacking all physical form proof)

[Zetetic11235]

To say the universe is an effect is viable; to say that the cause is not also an effect is not.

Nothingness crosses that metaphysical boundry I mentioned. It is not of us, and we cannot concieve of it entirely, only fool ourselfs into thinking that we have. I cannot envision a circumstance where I do not exist, nor can I envision a circumstance where somthing which does exist does not, for all which does exist ultimately has an effect on all elee which exists. I further cannot envision any scenario where somthing which does not exist does for I can only imagine what does exist, I can mentally rearrange my impressions of reality to accomodate an approximation of somthing which is not the physical case(I say approximation because that is what a mental model is, it is physical in and of itself).

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

To say the universe is an effect is viable; to say that the cause is not also an effect is not.

Nothingness crosses that metaphysical boundry I mentioned. It is not of us, and we cannot concieve of it entirely, only fool ourselfs into thinking that we have. I cannot envision a circumstance where I do not exist, nor can I envision a circumstance where somthing which does exist does not, for all which does exist ultimately has an effect on all elee which exists. I further cannot envision any scenario where somthing which does not exist does for I can only imagine what does exist, I can mentally rearrange my impressions of reality to accomodate an approximation of somthing which is not the physical case(I say approximation because that is what a mental model is, it is physical in and of itself).

Yet can be concieved as an absolute oppisite of somthing we can entirely concieve. It's Also why it cant be entirely concieved.

I can see
I cant see

I can hear
I cant hear

I can exist
I cant exist

I can concieve
I cant concieve

Just a few example's the list is endless...only bound by how much time I have to spend toward's making that list

I can concieve from one point of view
I cant concieve from one point of view

I can preceive it from one point of view
I cant preveive it from one point of view

Both point's of view are not the same, there oppsite point's of view, that's why in one way you can, and in one way you cant.

There are some that are very tricky oppisite's that when thought of you just hit a

[Zetetic11235]

[quote=No0ne;19107]Yet can be concieved as an absolute oppisite of somthing we can entirely concieve. It's Also why it cant be entirely concieved.

Originally Posted by No0ne

I can see
I cant see

I can hear
I cant hear

I can exist
I cant exist

I can concieve
I cant concieve

Is one not being able to see the opposite of one being able to see? The lack of sight can bring about a new aspect of perception and reality that is not reversable by giving sight. Can you concieve of not concieving? There is no method of induction/intution for this, it is not within human experience, and thus only the denotation is opposite, the semantics of the two statements are 'I can concieve' valid, but trivial, "I can't concieve' not verifiable by expericence. When one says that they cannot concieve of somthing, it is really that they do not understand it, the non conception of somthing is only valid as a string of words, not tied to anything but through syntax. The same of existence.
Just a few example's the list is endless...only bound by how much time I have to spend toward's making that list

Originally Posted by No0ne

I can concieve from one point of view
I cant concieve from one point of view

I can preceive it from one point of view
I cant preveive it from one point of view

Both point's of view are not the same, there oppsite point's of view, that's why in one way you can, and in one way you cant.

But are two points of view ever treuly opposite? Think about it.

[Master Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I bet there is a rationalistic way of figuring it out., if it is a loop, then you could relate anything to anything else, so an analogy would be relevant for rational reasons for the metaphysics of metaphysics. The only problem is that there is no proofs in speculation, but that doesn't mean we can't rationalize.

First of all, I don't think the Metaphysics of Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Secondly, what is this "loop" nonsense? The entire point of "rational" inquiry is to arrive at a proof, not an analogy. It makes no sense to claim that we can "rationalize" about something, while also admitting that a proof is ultimately unreachable. We might as well jump in a car and drive to nowhere.

[No0ne]

I'm making a new thread to talk about such philosophical theorie's of nature made oppisite's

(I'm just portraying a point of view of the existance that led's to the thought of such concept's, dosnt mean they are true or not true, I'm all neutral...)

[Aedes]

Master Pangloss -- that is the best critique of the cosmological argument I've ever read. Thank you.

[Holiday20310401]

That isn't fair, lol.

In Yes metaphysics of metaphysics is useless, but the loop is not an analogy, there just isn't a word for what I can describe; I mean, can't you understand what is meant by loop? What kind of cosmological argument would you rather discuss.

How about olber's paradox.

[TheRedMenace]

I do believe in God but I find using arguments like time is finite or there was a beginning therefore there must be a God to create that or there has to be a being eternal as well as using Infinite Regress to disprove God to be obsolete arguments because of one truth I have. The limitation of man is their inability to comprehend infinity or nothingness. Therefore I find using arguments involving incomprehensible tools obsolete.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by TheRedMenace

The limitation of man is their inability to comprehend infinity or nothingness.

And hence an argument for God's existence is, in the end, equivalent to the argument against it. The meaningfulness of both positive and negative assertions about God melt away in the face of an infinitude we can't comprehend.