There is God

by [anonymous]6 min read30th Mar 201131 comments

-13

Personal Blog
THE FIRST (The Uncaused Cause) AND THE BIGGEST (Encompass)

Firstly, I believe there is God. The definition of God on my side: God is The Uncaused (Consciousness that is not caused) and Encompassess All.

The argument actually based on "THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT" http://www.existence-of-god.com/... = "The past cannot go back forever, then the universe must have a beginning."

The impossibility to traverse back forever, only comes from thinking that it is impossible to retreat into the past to reach infinity. But the argument itself is still maintaining the possibility of retreat into the past indefinitely. That is, from our own thoughts asserted that search backward to the infinite extent should be stopped, while from the side of the argument does not assert a clear structure that shows the end point of a backward search.

This refinement shows the infinite that is indicated by "the first argument" actually indicate a stopping point.This argument perfected the argument that you know is: “because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will expire on the earliest”, where this refinement is by eliminating the reason (that asserts "traverse back forever is not possible") that lean towards unlimitedness.SYMBOLS for the argument

"[...]" indicates = direction, process
"(...)" indicates = object ... earlier ... earliest
"x" and "y" indicate = variables that can be replaced with any - considered - existence (on its own direction - position - related to this argument)

THERE IS THE EARLIEST EXISTENCE

(Consequences of Backward Search)

The existence of something comes from the existence of something else and the existence of something else comes from the existence of something else … which may be endless.

“x” <[from] ~ (unlimited)

(consequence) <[from] (unlimited – earlier)

Assuming that there is no any existence after the “x” then the most left boundary lies in the “x” (consequence – the next), and retreated to the right (causal – the earlier) away from the “x”.

The question now is whether this time can occur a creation? There are two possible answers are:

1. If it is not possible for any creation means no change in the amount of presence so that the amount being calculated from the “x” (consequence) and then retreated to the right (cause) away from the “x” there will be no adding for an existence.

“x” <[reverse direction] “!” (Limited - Earliest Point)

2. Even if it is possible for any creation means there is any additional existence towards the right (away from “x”):

“x” <[from] “?” [adding]> “y”

(consequence) <[from] (“?” – causal – the earlier – at any position) [adding]> (consequence)

Which resulted the search backward formation in two possible directions:

- search backwards from the “x” (consequence) toward the right (causal – the earlier – any position away from “x”),

“x” [search backward]> “?”

- the “y” (another consequence – an opposite position of “x”) located at the position of the sequence after the “? ” (causal – the earlier – at any position) toward the left (towards the “? “)

“x” <[from] “?” [adding]> “y”

“y” <[from] “?” [adding]> “x”

(consequence) <[from] (“?” – causal – the earlier – at any position) [adding]> (consequence)

“y” <[search backward] “?”

FINALLY, after all searches are always cultivated it shows (go to) the end point which is the limit as the earliest point from any direction, and this certainly confirms the existence of The Earliest.

“x” <[from] “?” [adding]> “y”

“y” <[from] “?” [adding]> “x”

“x” <[towards right] “?” [backwards from]> “y”

(“x” – consequence) <[towards right] (“?” – causal – at any position) [backwards from]> (“y” – consequence)

(“x” – consequence) <[towards right] (Meeting Point - Earliest Point) [backwards from]> (“y” – consequence)

----------
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

I just have to state it (license) to protect clearness of my refinement
----------

This dialog is a convertion for a better understanding. Sometimes thinking logically looks like "doesn't make sense" because of using symbols or forms of language that unusual to everyday life. This dialog hopefully will help them to get the sense of "make sense".

The point is: whether we go from the past to the present time or vice versa, there is no unlimitedness on the sequence !

I'd rather use dialog to clarify, and please use your imagination, this is a kind of thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho...). For a note, "infinite" in this conversation must be interpreted related to this argument:

Me: "well infinite, you must be running to the past as far as you can"
Infinite: "Yes I am running"

Me: "can you stop for a while? so I can catch the earliest?"
Infinite: "no, I am still running to the past, i never stop and therefore there is no ending point"

Me: "Ok, how about I make a guess for a number that represent an existence on your journey as the earliest that can exclude you!"
Infinite: "Okay, what is your number?"

Me: "The number is less than yours"
Infinite: "you can't catch me!, I am always running to the past"

Me: "The number is the same as you"
Infinite: "the number can't always be the same with my number", "I am still running to the past, therefore the number is still increasing"

Me: "The number is bigger than yours"
Infinite: "then it's me, not beyond mine, I am still running to the past and there is no indication for the ending point"

Me: "can you tell me the exact number at this present time?"
Infinite: "here is the number 1000xxx...!" "but I am telling you this is valid for this time, but later while i am running to the past, ... it could be represented with a different larger number"

Me: "Okay. I accept your number"
Me: "Okay, once again, when you said your number is 1000xxx..., meaning there are existence as many as those numbers, right!"
Infinite: "Correct" "Remember, now the number would be very different as I am running to the past"
Me: "Yes, I understand"

Me: "do you run backwards only to pass through the existing existence on the past, or each time you retreat to the back reflect the creation of another existence?
Infinite: "I am just passing by"
Me: "It's impossible, because it means you are not on the last point on the past
Infinite: "Ok, I am always on the last point on the past"

Me: "Meaning, you are always running (adding a number), and it indicates there is always a new thing (existence) on the past?"
Infinite: "Yes, it's correct"

Me: "Meaning, from any point on the past, I can pass through existing existence on the past to the opposite direction from the direction of your journey"
Infinite: "Yes"

Me: "Meaning, I am going back from the the past goes to the future, passing through all existing existence from the past"
Infinite: "Yes"

Me: "Meaning, it asserts the fact namely from this time goes back to the past, and from the past goes back to this time, and there will be a meeting at a certain point which is the meeting point from two-way search"
Infinite: "Yes"
Me: "Meaning, it asserts there is an existence at the meeting point"
Infinite: "Yes, but there could be more than one existences, each of existence is an endpoint from me (from the past to this time) and you (from this time to the past)"
Me: "I consider it The EndingPoint - The First without beginning"
Infinite: "You should be consider, there are more than one of it"

Me: "at least I found the existence of the earliest, the endingpoint, for my own species"
Infinite: "Whatever" ... "Finally you found the endingpoint on your side through searching on my sequence"

Meaning: THERE IS THE FIRST (Uncaused Cause) AND THE BIGGEST !

My refinement is showing that if we forced to traverse back, then infinity itself shows us a reverse direction, and infinity in this condition will lead us to meeting point.
The Last Part:
To facilitate the understanding, reality can be divided into several categories, and for something has a cause to it and form a causal sequence (traverse back) that is also typical for something itself.

So you can assume there is the sequence of events for animal, there is a sequence of events for matter, and there is a sequence of events for whatever it is. And each of these types of reality should be considered to have something that is: "The First without beginning and it's typical to animal (matter, etc). It asserts, that we can think of a logical consequence of the existence of more than one of "The First without beginning ". There is "The Uncaused Cause" for animals, there is "The Uncaused Cause" for matter, there is "The Uncaused Cause" for human, etc.
  1. There should be the earliest for anything, or the past will go on and go on without having an ending point, and it's impossible, as mentioned above.
  2. Therefore,anything could be track back tothat is regarded as the earliest, "The First without beginning, "The Uncaused Cause".
  3. Then from here, it can be concluded further that because the reality in all categorieshave the sameness namely it's constructed with the same kind of particles, then it should have similarities between "The First without beginning" with all "The First without beginning" in each category of reality. At this point of view, I've turned into, that there is just one "The First without beginning" for each category of reality. Andit is The Greatest (The First without Beginning) and Encompasses All.
Once we believe in the existence of "The First without beginning", it means if we are able to communicate, animals can communicate, then "The First without beginning" is also able to communicate. If we are able to realize, able to feel, then "The First without beginning" is also able to realize  and feel. Up here is enough for me to make sure that there is "The First without beginning" that is able to realize,  able to communicate. And for me it's enough to ensure for the existence of a large force that encompasses everything and can be considered as having consciousness that is worth for us to make decisions, to press the worship button.

 

Personal Blog

-13