Philosophy Now Forum

1. There are events.
2. Every event has a cause.
3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).
4. Every event can not be externally-caused.
5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.
6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.
7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.
8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.
9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

SUPPORT:

1. There are events.

The truth of this premise is confirmed by our observation of events.

2. Every event has a cause.

If something had no means of coming into existence, then it couldn't come into existence. I think that statement is self-evident. The means by which a thing comes into existence is its cause, as causes are what bring things into existence. If everything that comes into existence needs a means of coming into existence, then events also need a means. That means being a cause. Events, therefore, need causes.

3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).

Either something changes itself, or it is changed by something else. There only being self and other, there is, therefore, only two things which can cause change, and thus, only two causes. Externally-caused events are mechanistic in that they are determined by things from the outside, like one pool ball hitting another. The output of one is determined by and only happens because of the input of something else. Self-causation is when something causes itself to act and is free will in that the entity in question determines for itself, whether, when, and how to act.

4. Every event can not be externally-caused.

There are only three types of external-causation scenarios; an infinite regress, a circular chain of causation, and a finite chain of causation. An infinite regress is when one cause depends upon the cause previous to it, and that cause depends upon the cause previous to it, ad infinitum. A circular chain of causes is when the chain of causes loops back on itself, such that the last cause causes the first. And a finite chain of causes is a chain which terminates in a first or original cause.

An infinite chain of causes can not exist, because if all the causes are dependent, they ultimately have nothing to derive their existence from. A circular chain of causes can not exist because there must ultimately be something outside of it to ground the chains existence. With nothing outside of it to ground it, the chain can not exist, similar to how someone can not hold themselves up in mid-air, being held up in mid-air signifying being held in existence. That leaves a finite causal chain whose first cause can't be a cause that requires an external cause, for if it requires an external cause to exist, but doesn't have one due to being the first cause, then it can't exist, and neither can every subsequent cause that forms the chain. Also, because every event must have a cause, which I argued for in the second premise, this means that the first cause in a finite chain can not not have a cause. With causes only either being external or self-caused, and the chain of causes being unable to end in an external cause, this mean that the first cause of every chain of causes must ultimately be a self-caused cause, or free will.

5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.

This was demonstrated in the elaboration of premise 4. If every cause can't be externally-caused, and there are only two types of causes, external and self-caused causes, then the only other option is for there to be have been a self-caused event.

6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.

If all events need causes, and there are only externally-caused and self-caused causes, then no event can just exist as an externally-caused event without ultimately terminating in a self-caused cause. As that which is externally-caused requires, by definition, something external to cause it, lacking which, it can not exist, meaning that a single externally-caused event can not exist without a cause, and neither can the first cause in a finite chain of externally-caused events. Being unable to not have a cause as argued in the elaboration of premise 2, and there being only two causes, external and self-causes causes, every chain of events must end in a self-caused cause, which means that the first event in all of existence was a self-caused cause or event. Self-causation being free will, the first event in existence was an act of free will.

7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.

This follows from the nature of self-caused events. If our actions were caused by external events, then, because the input of an external cause, the external cause itself, is independent of its output, and the output wholly determined by the input, then, because one can not determine the input, one can not determine the output, the output being our actions. To envision this, imagine two pool balls. Pool ball A hits pool ball B, and is thus, the external cause of pool ball B's motion. Because pool ball A is independent of pool B, pool ball B doesn't determine the actions of pool A, and thus can not determine the output that pool ball A causes it to have. However, if our actions are self-caused, then we determine the input and output simultaneously, and are thus the origin and determiner of our actions, this being free will. Thus, free will, rather than being externally-caused or uncaused, is self-caused. All events needing causes, and all chains of events being finite, and the only causes being external-causes and self-caused causes, all causes therefore terminate in a self-caused cause, since all events and chains of events terminate in a self-caused cause or are a self-caused cause, the very first event must be a self-caused event, and with self-causation being free will, the first event must be free will.

8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.

Free will implies the existence of beings, since only beings can have free will. If every event traces back to a first event, and events are needed to generate anything in existence, then this event must have been enacted by a being that is eternal (since there could be no event before it that caused it, it acting out the first event), and that existed prior to the universe (since the universe was generated by an event), this being a fitting description of God.

9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

If only something like God could cause the first event, the first event must have been God. The reason that I put "or once existed" is that the argument only demonstrates that there WAS a first cause. The being that caused the first cause may not exist any longer, although I doubt this. I may post an argument later for why God must always exist.

Any objections?

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 1. There are events.
2. Every event has a cause.
3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).
4. Every event can not be externally-caused.
5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.
6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.
7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.
8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.
9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

SUPPORT:

1. There are events.

The truth of this premise is confirmed by our observation of events.

2. Every event has a cause.

If something had no means of coming into existence, then it couldn't come into existence. I think that statement is self-evident. The means by which a thing comes into existence is its cause, as causes are what bring things into existence. If everything that comes into existence needs a means of coming into existence, then events also need a means. That means being a cause. Events, therefore, need causes.

3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).

Either something changes itself, or it is changed by something else. There only being self and other, there is, therefore, only two things which can cause change, and thus, only two causes. Externally-caused events are mechanistic in that they are determined by things from the outside, like one pool ball hitting another. The output of one is determined by and only happens because of the input of something else. Self-causation is when something causes itself to act and is free will in that the entity in question determines for itself, whether, when, and how to act.

4. Every event can not be externally-caused.

There are only three types of external-causation scenarios; an infinite regress, a circular chain of causation, and a finite chain of causation. An infinite regress is when one cause depends upon the cause previous to it, and that cause depends upon the cause previous to it, ad infinitum. A circular chain of causes is when the chain of causes loops back on itself, such that the last cause causes the first. And a finite chain of causes is a chain which terminates in a first or original cause.

An infinite chain of causes can not exist, because if all the causes are dependent, they ultimately have nothing to derive their existence from. A circular chain of causes can not exist because there must ultimately be something outside of it to ground the chains existence. With nothing outside of it to ground it, the chain can not exist, similar to how someone can not hold themselves up in mid-air, being held up in mid-air signifying being held in existence. That leaves a finite causal chain whose first cause can't be a cause that requires an external cause, for if it requires an external cause to exist, but doesn't have one due to being the first cause, then it can't exist, and neither can every subsequent cause that forms the chain. Also, because every event must have a cause, which I argued for in the second premise, this means that the first cause in a finite chain can not not have a cause. With causes only either being external or self-caused, and the chain of causes being unable to end in an external cause, this mean that the first cause of every chain of causes must ultimately be a self-caused cause, or free will.

5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.

This was demonstrated in the elaboration of premise 4. If every cause can't be externally-caused, and there are only two types of causes, external and self-caused causes, then the only other option is for there to be have been a self-caused event.

6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.

If all events need causes, and there are only externally-caused and self-caused causes, then no event can just exist as an externally-caused event without ultimately terminating in a self-caused cause. As that which is externally-caused requires, by definition, something external to cause it, lacking which, it can not exist, meaning that a single externally-caused event can not exist without a cause, and neither can the first cause in a finite chain of externally-caused events. Being unable to not have a cause as argued in the elaboration of premise 2, and there being only two causes, external and self-causes causes, every chain of events must end in a self-caused cause, which means that the first event in all of existence was a self-caused cause or event. Self-causation being free will, the first event in existence was an act of free will.

7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.

This follows from the nature of self-caused events. If our actions were caused by external events, then, because the input of an external cause, the external cause itself, is independent of its output, and the output wholly determined by the input, then, because one can not determine the input, one can not determine the output, the output being our actions. To envision this, imagine two pool balls. Pool ball A hits pool ball B, and is thus, the external cause of pool ball B's motion. Because pool ball A is independent of pool B, pool ball B doesn't determine the actions of pool A, and thus can not determine the output that pool ball A causes it to have. However, if our actions are self-caused, then we determine the input and output simultaneously, and are thus the origin and determiner of our actions, this being free will. Thus, free will, rather than being externally-caused or uncaused, is self-caused. All events needing causes, and all chains of events being finite, and the only causes being external-causes and self-caused causes, all causes therefore terminate in a self-caused cause, since all events and chains of events terminate in a self-caused cause or are a self-caused cause, the very first event must be a self-caused event, and with self-causation being free will, the first event must be free will.

8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.

Free will implies the existence of beings, since only beings can have free will. If every event traces back to a first event, and events are needed to generate anything in existence, then this event must have been enacted by a being that is eternal (since there could be no event before it that caused it, it acting out the first event), and that existed prior to the universe (since the universe was generated by an event), this being a fitting description of God.

9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

If only something like God could cause the first event, the first event must have been God. The reason that I put "or once existed" is that the argument only demonstrates that there WAS a first cause. The being that caused the first cause may not exist any longer, although I doubt this. I may post an argument later for why God must always exist.

Any objections?

WHERE does the PRESUMPTION that there was a FIRST event come from?

Wait a minute there georgebackstroke, what's going on with premise 3 of the opening argument? I aks becuz if your conclusion requires 3 to be true, your conclusion would be false (and I don't even know what your conclusion is yet cuz I wuz like skrrrrch and stopped at 3 when I saw it).

On the other hand, if 3 is a supporting but not necessary feature of the argument, your conclusion may still be true. Imma have to see tho.

These types of arguments come along so often from noobs to the forum, and are always ridiculous. Talk about chasing God's tale or should I spell that tail.

Now you're just shit talking mate becuz that single post is more philosophical than anything I've ever seen u say.

For one thing he talks about billiard balls, and whenever a philosophical argument has billiard balls in it, it's gonna be good. Hume pretty much established that. Do u even know who Hume was? He wuz a rastafarian rationalist. A very, very important one in epistemology.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:24 am Now you're just shit talking mate becuz that single post is more philosophical than anything I've ever seen u say.

For one thing he talks about billiard balls, and whenever a philosophical argument has billiard balls in it, it's gonna be good. Hume pretty much established that. Do u even know who Hume was? He wuz a rastafarian rationalist. A very, very important one in epistemology.

I have to admit I nearly deleted my post when I started having a bit more of a read. But anyway, shove yer billiard balls up yer backside!

I read a little ABOUT Hume, when a major atheist had his pic as his avatar many many years ago - the dude still posts here under a different username\avatar.

I don't read much by way of others philosophy, and I don't see much point reading about famous atheist philosophers (unless they are from the current day, since they should know better - have more of an open mind in relation to QM etc). I do analyse reality, I like reading books on science rather than a bunch of waffly philosophers that spend 10 pages expaining what usually just comes down to common sense.

But there ya go.

I assume you got into philosophy via an instituition of some kind.

How about this - God formed its intelligence from chaos (not in the mathematical model sense) by chance - a place of NO causality, fucks infinte regress issue up the arse.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 1. There are events.
2. Every event has a cause.
3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).
4. Every event can not be externally-caused.
5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.
6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.
7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.
8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.
9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

Any objections?

Your point 3 is questionable.

• 1. There are events. [scientific]
  2. Every event has a cause. [scientific]
  3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will). [non-scientific, personal speculation]

From 2 to 3 you are committing a fallacy of equivocation in changing senses from scientific to personal speculation based on crude logic.

At present the furthest traceable cause of reality science can admit is the Big Bang but do not conclude the BB as self-cause by a first cause of supreme perfection or greatness.

Why you desperately jump to conclusion without valid and sound argument based merely on faith and speculation is this;

Theism Soothes the Existential Angst
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=39204


It is impossible for God to exists as real.

1. An Existential Angst exists as real in ALL humans.
2. Theism [God is Real] relieves and soothes the Existential Angst immediately.
3. For majority of theists, God must exists as Real [absolutely perfect]

P1. God [is real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
C. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 1. There are events.

True.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 2. Every event has a cause.

Not true. The beginning of everything does not have a cause for example. This follows from two steps: 1) There is no creator (I have an argument against the act of creation), 2) Everything has a beginning, and 3) Therefore, not everything has a cause.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).

True.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 4. Every event can not be externally-caused.

Prove it.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.

Does not follow, see the previous comment.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.

That is a big IF.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.

What do you mean by "it is free will"? Do you mean it is caused freely?

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.

No. Please see my objections above.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

Does not follow.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 1. There are events.
2. Every event has a cause.
3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).
4. Every event can not be externally-caused.
5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.
6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.
7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.
8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.
9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

SUPPORT:

1. There are events.

The truth of this premise is confirmed by our observation of events.

2. Every event has a cause.

If something had no means of coming into existence, then it couldn't come into existence. I think that statement is self-evident. The means by which a thing comes into existence is its cause, as causes are what bring things into existence. If everything that comes into existence needs a means of coming into existence, then events also need a means. That means being a cause. Events, therefore, need causes.

3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).

Either something changes itself, or it is changed by something else. There only being self and other, there is, therefore, only two things which can cause change, and thus, only two causes. Externally-caused events are mechanistic in that they are determined by things from the outside, like one pool ball hitting another. The output of one is determined by and only happens because of the input of something else. Self-causation is when something causes itself to act and is free will in that the entity in question determines for itself, whether, when, and how to act.

4. Every event can not be externally-caused.

There are only three types of external-causation scenarios; an infinite regress, a circular chain of causation, and a finite chain of causation. An infinite regress is when one cause depends upon the cause previous to it, and that cause depends upon the cause previous to it, ad infinitum. A circular chain of causes is when the chain of causes loops back on itself, such that the last cause causes the first. And a finite chain of causes is a chain which terminates in a first or original cause.

An infinite chain of causes can not exist, because if all the causes are dependent, they ultimately have nothing to derive their existence from. A circular chain of causes can not exist because there must ultimately be something outside of it to ground the chains existence. With nothing outside of it to ground it, the chain can not exist, similar to how someone can not hold themselves up in mid-air, being held up in mid-air signifying being held in existence. That leaves a finite causal chain whose first cause can't be a cause that requires an external cause, for if it requires an external cause to exist, but doesn't have one due to being the first cause, then it can't exist, and neither can every subsequent cause that forms the chain. Also, because every event must have a cause, which I argued for in the second premise, this means that the first cause in a finite chain can not not have a cause. With causes only either being external or self-caused, and the chain of causes being unable to end in an external cause, this mean that the first cause of every chain of causes must ultimately be a self-caused cause, or free will.

5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.

This was demonstrated in the elaboration of premise 4. If every cause can't be externally-caused, and there are only two types of causes, external and self-caused causes, then the only other option is for there to be have been a self-caused event.

6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.

If all events need causes, and there are only externally-caused and self-caused causes, then no event can just exist as an externally-caused event without ultimately terminating in a self-caused cause. As that which is externally-caused requires, by definition, something external to cause it, lacking which, it can not exist, meaning that a single externally-caused event can not exist without a cause, and neither can the first cause in a finite chain of externally-caused events. Being unable to not have a cause as argued in the elaboration of premise 2, and there being only two causes, external and self-causes causes, every chain of events must end in a self-caused cause, which means that the first event in all of existence was a self-caused cause or event. Self-causation being free will, the first event in existence was an act of free will.

7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.

This follows from the nature of self-caused events. If our actions were caused by external events, then, because the input of an external cause, the external cause itself, is independent of its output, and the output wholly determined by the input, then, because one can not determine the input, one can not determine the output, the output being our actions. To envision this, imagine two pool balls. Pool ball A hits pool ball B, and is thus, the external cause of pool ball B's motion. Because pool ball A is independent of pool B, pool ball B doesn't determine the actions of pool A, and thus can not determine the output that pool ball A causes it to have. However, if our actions are self-caused, then we determine the input and output simultaneously, and are thus the origin and determiner of our actions, this being free will. Thus, free will, rather than being externally-caused or uncaused, is self-caused. All events needing causes, and all chains of events being finite, and the only causes being external-causes and self-caused causes, all causes therefore terminate in a self-caused cause, since all events and chains of events terminate in a self-caused cause or are a self-caused cause, the very first event must be a self-caused event, and with self-causation being free will, the first event must be free will.

8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.

Free will implies the existence of beings, since only beings can have free will. If every event traces back to a first event, and events are needed to generate anything in existence, then this event must have been enacted by a being that is eternal (since there could be no event before it that caused it, it acting out the first event), and that existed prior to the universe (since the universe was generated by an event), this being a fitting description of God.

9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

If only something like God could cause the first event, the first event must have been God. The reason that I put "or once existed" is that the argument only demonstrates that there WAS a first cause. The being that caused the first cause may not exist any longer, although I doubt this. I may post an argument later for why God must always exist.

Any objections?

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation. Ad-infinitum (Anavastha) results. Science disproved some conclusions of the earlier logic and this should not be misunderstood as refusing God. God is in no way touched because the earlier logic also was dealing with only the analysis of created items. Tarka means the analysis of the items of creation, which are indicated and understood by their corresponding names or words (Tarkyante Padarthah Asminniti….). God is beyond all the words and cannot be the understood meaning of any word and therefore, logic cannot touch God.

Today science is the most advanced logic since the experimental verification was improved. Therefore if I am explaining the philosophy based on science, it means that the philosophy is more and more clear due to the advanced logic. I told you already that the logic (science) is only useful to refuse any item of creation as not God.

We should base the subject of philosophy related to God on good logic, which is scientific and systematic without defects like mutual contradiction, ad-infinitum etc.

The example for ad-infinitum is that an endless chain is created in statements like ‘which is the cause for God?’ In the analysis of creation, you may go on stating the cause for every cause.

You may say that the cause for earth is water. The cause for water is fire. The cause for fire is air. The cause for air is space. The cause for space is God (Atmana Aakashah… Veda). You should stop at a particular cause, which has no cause. If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa). To remove this defect, we have to stop at some cause, which is called as the ultimate cause i.e., the God. Hence, the subject of philosophy (Vedanta) should be always based on good logic (Sat tarka) only. Shankara told this point that bad crooked logic should be stopped and good logic should be followed in any discussion (Dustarkah suviramyataam shrutimatah tarkonu sandhiyataam…).

The unimaginable God is beyond space. Space has three dimensions called length, breadth, and height. Time also is an associated coordinate of space since, without space, time cannot exist. When we take the state of unimaginable God, He is beyond space and time, due to which He is unimaginable. Since He is beyond time, you should not ask Me about the time in which He existed alone without creation. His state, which is beyond the four-dimensional space-time, exists even now and it will exist even in the future. His state continues forever even after the creation of this world and even though He enters the world in the form of Incarnations. It is a wonder how God remains unchanged in spite of incarnating in multiple forms, and it is possible due to His inherent unimaginable nature. This is described in the Gita as “Avibhaktam vibhakteṣu”

First, God created space, which is subtle inert energy. Space and the subtle energy are one and the same since the Veda says in one place that God created space (Ātmana ākāśaḥ...), and in another place, it also says that God created energy (Tat tejo’sṛjata...). Regarding the creation of the other elements and items of creation, a chain of cause and effect is described. It is told that from space arose air, and from air arose fire and so on. God is said to be the direct cause only for space and energy. Since both space and energy are separately said to be the first creations, which were directly created by God, they must be one and the same.

It means that space, even though it appears to be ‘nothing’ is actually ‘something’. It is subtle energy. The visible gross energy is derived from the invisible subtle energy by the reduction in its frequency. We know that visible light is electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation of higher frequencies such as ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays, is invisible to us but it is detected by scientific instruments. The subtle energy has even higher frequencies than x-rays or gamma rays and it is not only invisible to us but it is also undetected by scientific instruments. However, it is not nothing, since it is basically energy.

Just because something is invisible to your eyes or to scientific instruments, it does not mean it is ‘nothing’ or non-existent. It can exist even though it is invisible. Ancient Indian logic speaks about the quantization of space. They described ākāśa paramāṇus, which can roughly be translated as ‘atoms of space’. It clearly indicates that the ancient Indian philosophers knew that space, being one of the five elements, is something. Science also speaks about the bending of space, which suggests that space is something. It is possible that all of creation disappears yet space alone remains. Space has its own independent existence. Space need not disappear along with matter as some scientists think.

God wanted to create this world and He created space or subtle energy as the first item. Without space, creation cannot exist even though space can exist without creation. God wanted to express Himself to the souls, which were to be created in the future. So, He created a divine energetic body containing a divine energetic soul. Both the energetic soul and body together are called as the energetic being. The unimaginable God merged with this first energetic being permanently to become the First Energetic Incarnation called Datta. Datta means ‘given’ or ‘expressed’ for the sake of souls. Datta is known by many names including Hiraṇyagarbha, Nārāyaṇa, Sadāśiva, Īśvara, and Father of heaven.

The first Energetic Incarnation occupies a certain amount of space from the point of view of its body and soul. The soul too is a form of energy and it requires space for its existence. Thus, the first Energetic Incarnation needs some amount of subtle energy for the creation of its body and soul. A part of the subtle energy, which is the first item created by God, is used for this purpose. Even in the final dissolution, this space occupied by the first Energetic Incarnation does not disappear because this First Incarnation is eternal. This holy space is called the ultimate space or parama vyoma. It is called ultimate or parama since it will not disappear even if the entire creation disappears.

Actually, in the final dissolution, the world only goes from its gross state into a subtle or hidden state called avyaktam. A movie is projected on the screen in a movie theater during the show. This is like the gross state of creation. When the show is over, the movie is no longer projected on the screen, but it remains in a subtle form in the film reel. This is like the subtle state of creation during dissolution. Not only does the first Energetic Incarnation called Hiraṇyagarbha or Brahmā remain during the dissolution, but His abode called Brahma Loka also does not disappear. In other words, space never disappears. It is space which contains Brahma Loka and the rest of creation in a subtle state. It is this ultimate space that is mentioned in the Veda through the words “Parame vyoman...”. Brahma Loka also exists in its gross state after final dissolution and can be called as parama vyoma. The space occupied by the creation in subtle state, after final dissolution, is called as vyoma or space.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:05 am
P1. God [is real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
C. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Science discussed a lot about the boundary of space and beyond it. This boundary is unreachable for any human being and hence, is called as infinite. Unreachable need not be infinite. The finite space also can be unreachable since very very long finite space is also unreachable. Since space is creation of God, its boundary must be known to omniscient God and hence, space must be finite and unreachable for humanity.

If it is finite, beyond it, something should exist. Science itself asks about the nature of the item present beyond the boundary wall of space. Anything beyond space is unimaginable. The reason is that an item beyond space must not have space in it. It must not have spatial dimensions and hence, must not have volume. Even if you concentrate for millions of years, you cannot imagine a volumeless item. Hence, space is finite having boundary, which is unreachable by us, beyond which some unimaginable item must exist, which is called as unimaginable God by us.

If space is infinite, it must not have boundary. Hence, science calls space as infinite without boundary and therefore, there is nothing beyond its non-existent boundary. Hence, there is no reference of God in science. But, we prove the existence of unimaginable God, who is the source of unimaginable miracles seen in the world. Beyond the boundary of imaginable space (hence, we say that space is finite having boundary), proper place must be given to an unimaginable item that is proved by miracles.

Science, unable to give the reason behind miracles, neither accepts these miracles (due to the inability of explanation) nor rejects miracles since these miracles are seen in the world. Hence, science is silent about God and miracles. This is sincere right path of research. Atheists are not scientific since they abandon miracles saying that miracles are simply magic. In case of genuine miracle, they say that science will explain these miracles tomorrow and that tomorrow never comes! Science never says so!

[Science says that space is expanding constantly. But, Einstein feels that space is totally non-existent. There is no meaning of expansion of non-existent item. If you treat space as infinite and say that the universe consisting of energy and matter is expanding, such expansion must result in the decrease of its density and disintegration of items in the universe, which are not experienced by us. You can say that fresh energy is created, which is converting into matter (and awareness also if you feel that awareness exists apart from the earth), then, the expansion of the universe is possible.

In such case, there is no harm in saying that space is also a form of subtle energy and constant creation of energy means constant creation of space or subtle energy and subsequent constant creation of matter (and awareness). This means that the universe or space is constantly being created. This constant expansion (by creation) of the space or universe is needed to prove that the space is expanding so that no human being can reach the boundary of space and see the unimaginable item existing beyond it.

This means that unreachable nature of space is not inherent characteristic of the space itself, but, is relative due to the impossibility of human being to touch the unimaginable God existing beyond it. You may doubt that the humanity is not travelling with such high velocity so that the present existing finite space has to expand further to make the human being unable to touch the unimaginable God. It is true if the reference is humanity only.

In this creation, apart from humanity on the earth, there are upper energetic worlds in which energetic beings called as angels exist. Even if these energetic beings (angels) travel with very high terrible velocity, they are also unable to touch the boundary of space so that they cannot touch the unimaginable God.
For such requirement, the space has to expand with more speed so that all the boundaries extend further by which even the angels do not touch the boundary of space. The Veda says that even angels could not obtain the unimaginable God (Nainat devaa aapnuvan…). Hence, the expansion of universe is with reference to the angels and not with reference to the humanity. Thus, the constant expansion of the universe proposed by science is correlated with the Vedic statement.

Unimaginable God is undetectable by our human brains. ‘Undetectable’ does not mean that it does not exist. The simultaneous position and momentum of electron are undetectable by the most sophisticated electron microscope. When this instrument is used, the focussed beam attacks the electron and its position is disturbed. Hence, this microscope is unable to detect the exact position of the electron and hence, is unable to calculate the simultaneous momentum of the electron in its original position.

This does not mean that the exact position and simultaneous momentum of electron do not co-exist. They exist, but, are undetectable to the instrument since the equipment used is crude before the sensitivity of the values of electron. This is propounded by Heisenberg as Uncertainty Principle in Science. Similarly, the sensitivity of the status of unimaginable God is very sharp compared to the crudeness of the imagination done by our intelligence-equipment.
God, being the generator of space, does not have space in Him. The product can’t exist in its cause before its generation and if it exists, it is said to be existent even before its generation, which is impossible. God, having no space or spatial dimensions in Him, has no length, width and height. He is beyond space, having no volume. Any item beyond space can never be imagined by anybody even on concentrating for millions of years! Therefore, God exists, even though unimaginable for our intelligence.

[You should not argue that the existence of unimaginable God should be verified through natural explanations and not by unnatural or unscientific explanations. Nature means creation. Every item in the creation has spatial dimensions and hence, is not beyond space. It is having spatial dimensions and is imaginable. Your objection is that God is to be explained through natural concepts.

We can explain the existence of unimaginable God even though we can’t explain the nature of God.The Veda also says that only the existence of God can be proved and not His nature (Asteetyeva…, Atarkyah…). We never say that we will explain the nature of God. We openly say that God is unimaginable, which means that the nature of God is beyond imagination. But, we can explain and prove the existence of God through natural concepts. If we examine a genuine miracle, it involves natural items and natural concepts only. Whenever the recent human incarnation Shri Satya Sai Baba created sacred ash or some material, His hand creating that is visible and natural.

The rotation of His hand in circular way is also visible and natural. The produced item from space is also visible and natural. Only the mechanism or power of production of an item from space is unimaginable. All these visible natural items and natural processes indicate the final result that an item from the space is produced in unimaginable way. Hence, the unimaginable mechanism or power exists. We say that this unimaginable power or mechanism itself is unimaginable God because there can’t exist two unimaginable items.

Any number of unimaginable items result only as one unimaginable item. Hence, we can’t say that there exists unimaginable God and separately unimaginable power. Hence, this unimaginable power itself is unimaginable God. We use the terminology like unimaginable God and unimaginable power for the sake of explaining to the human brains, which are based on the worldly logic. In the world, we find the source of power like Sun and his power like Sunlight as two different items.

Based on this worldly logic only we use the terms unimaginable God and unimaginable power separately for a better clarification to the human brains. Therefore, once the existence of unimaginable power is proved, the existence of unimaginable God is proved by itself. Hence, the existence of unimaginable God is testable, which is the basic requirement of science for the proof of any concept.
Hence, the existence of unimaginable God is to be accepted through the authority of perception and its deductive knowledge, which alone is believed by science as single authority. There is no need of inference and its inductive knowledge in the explanation of the genuine miracle. The testability can be implemented by the scientist in seeing that such generation of an item from the space is not through the magic. In this point, it is open. The generation of divine ash and special scented nectar from the photos of Baba and other forms of God were also clearly visible and proved beyond any doubt, which can’t be misinterpreted as magic.

A magician may generate a hidden item from the hand through magic. But, sacred ash and nectar can’t be generated by his photos which are existing far from him! Hence, the testability of genuine miracle is proved beyond any doubt, which clearly establishes the existence of unimaginable God.

dattaswami wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:05 am
P1. God [is real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
C. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

A magician may generate a hidden item from the hand through magic. But, sacred ash and nectar can’t be generated by his photos which are existing far from him! Hence, the testability of genuine miracle is proved beyond any doubt, which clearly establishes the existence of unimaginable God.

You list but did not address my argument at all.
You write a lot but they are all in the ultimate sense, nonsensical and are illusions.

Why Space and Time Are an Illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxAV_Re4OWA
Space, time and spacetime are relatively real but in the ultimate sense they are an illusion.
You read up and do more research on this.

An "unimaginable God" is like a square-circle which is impossible to exist as real.

P1. God [is real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real

If you can prove absolute perfection is a possibility to be real, then your God is real, if not, then your God is merely an illusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:54 am


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxAV_Re4OWA
Space, time and spacetime are relatively real but in the ultimate sense they are an illusion.
You read up and do more research on this.

An "unimaginable God" is like a square-circle which is impossible to exist as real.

P1. God [is real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real

If you can prove absolute perfection is a possibility to be real, then your God is real, if not, then your God is merely an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DjGUwh4-bc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwKe8sXlAx0

dattaswami wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 11:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:54 am


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxAV_Re4OWA
Space, time and spacetime are relatively real but in the ultimate sense they are an illusion.
You read up and do more research on this.

An "unimaginable God" is like a square-circle which is impossible to exist as real.

P1. God [is real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real

If you can prove absolute perfection is a possibility to be real, then your God is real, if not, then your God is merely an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DjGUwh4-bc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwKe8sXlAx0

Suggest you summarize your counter argument.

If you can prove absolute perfection is a possibility to be real, then your God is real, if not, then your God is merely an illusion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:05 am If you can prove absolute perfection is a possibility to be real, then your God is real, if not, then your God is merely an illusion.

VA has done this for years. First he uses the redundant phrase absolute perfection to second create a definition of what God must be. He an atheist tells theists what there God must be like. VA defines God for them, then tells them they must prove that VA's version of God is the only one that counts.

How this should go is that they define their own theism, including their definition/description of God, and then they are asked to demonstrate this deity is real or possible. Or the discussion can focus on VA saying that version is not possible.

GeorgeBackstrom wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:18 am 1. There are events.
2. Every event has a cause.
3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).
4. Every event can not be externally-caused.
5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.
6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.
7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.
8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.
9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

SUPPORT:

1. There are events.

The truth of this premise is confirmed by our observation of events.

2. Every event has a cause.

If something had no means of coming into existence, then it couldn't come into existence. I think that statement is self-evident. The means by which a thing comes into existence is its cause, as causes are what bring things into existence. If everything that comes into existence needs a means of coming into existence, then events also need a means. That means being a cause. Events, therefore, need causes.

3. There are two types of causes; external causes (mechanistic causation), and self-caused causes (free will).

Either something changes itself, or it is changed by something else. There only being self and other, there is, therefore, only two things which can cause change, and thus, only two causes. Externally-caused events are mechanistic in that they are determined by things from the outside, like one pool ball hitting another. The output of one is determined by and only happens because of the input of something else. Self-causation is when something causes itself to act and is free will in that the entity in question determines for itself, whether, when, and how to act.

4. Every event can not be externally-caused.

There are only three types of external-causation scenarios; an infinite regress, a circular chain of causation, and a finite chain of causation. An infinite regress is when one cause depends upon the cause previous to it, and that cause depends upon the cause previous to it, ad infinitum. A circular chain of causes is when the chain of causes loops back on itself, such that the last cause causes the first. And a finite chain of causes is a chain which terminates in a first or original cause.

An infinite chain of causes can not exist, because if all the causes are dependent, they ultimately have nothing to derive their existence from. A circular chain of causes can not exist because there must ultimately be something outside of it to ground the chains existence. With nothing outside of it to ground it, the chain can not exist, similar to how someone can not hold themselves up in mid-air, being held up in mid-air signifying being held in existence. That leaves a finite causal chain whose first cause can't be a cause that requires an external cause, for if it requires an external cause to exist, but doesn't have one due to being the first cause, then it can't exist, and neither can every subsequent cause that forms the chain. Also, because every event must have a cause, which I argued for in the second premise, this means that the first cause in a finite chain can not not have a cause. With causes only either being external or self-caused, and the chain of causes being unable to end in an external cause, this mean that the first cause of every chain of causes must ultimately be a self-caused cause, or free will.

5. Therefore, there must have been a self-caused event.

This was demonstrated in the elaboration of premise 4. If every cause can't be externally-caused, and there are only two types of causes, external and self-caused causes, then the only other option is for there to be have been a self-caused event.

6. If all chains of events end in a self-caused event, then the very first event in all of existence must've been self-caused.

If all events need causes, and there are only externally-caused and self-caused causes, then no event can just exist as an externally-caused event without ultimately terminating in a self-caused cause. As that which is externally-caused requires, by definition, something external to cause it, lacking which, it can not exist, meaning that a single externally-caused event can not exist without a cause, and neither can the first cause in a finite chain of externally-caused events. Being unable to not have a cause as argued in the elaboration of premise 2, and there being only two causes, external and self-causes causes, every chain of events must end in a self-caused cause, which means that the first event in all of existence was a self-caused cause or event. Self-causation being free will, the first event in existence was an act of free will.

7. If the very first event is self-caused, it is free will.

This follows from the nature of self-caused events. If our actions were caused by external events, then, because the input of an external cause, the external cause itself, is independent of its output, and the output wholly determined by the input, then, because one can not determine the input, one can not determine the output, the output being our actions. To envision this, imagine two pool balls. Pool ball A hits pool ball B, and is thus, the external cause of pool ball B's motion. Because pool ball A is independent of pool B, pool ball B doesn't determine the actions of pool A, and thus can not determine the output that pool ball A causes it to have. However, if our actions are self-caused, then we determine the input and output simultaneously, and are thus the origin and determiner of our actions, this being free will. Thus, free will, rather than being externally-caused or uncaused, is self-caused. All events needing causes, and all chains of events being finite, and the only causes being external-causes and self-caused causes, all causes therefore terminate in a self-caused cause, since all events and chains of events terminate in a self-caused cause or are a self-caused cause, the very first event must be a self-caused event, and with self-causation being free will, the first event must be free will.

8. Only the free will of God could have been responsible for the first event.

Free will implies the existence of beings, since only beings can have free will. If every event traces back to a first event, and events are needed to generate anything in existence, then this event must have been enacted by a being that is eternal (since there could be no event before it that caused it, it acting out the first event), and that existed prior to the universe (since the universe was generated by an event), this being a fitting description of God.

9. Therefore, God exists (or once existed).

If only something like God could cause the first event, the first event must have been God. The reason that I put "or once existed" is that the argument only demonstrates that there WAS a first cause. The being that caused the first cause may not exist any longer, although I doubt this. I may post an argument later for why God must always exist.

Any objections?

This is super long-winded and not general enough to be useful. Have you heard the expression "Every paradigm requires at least one miracle."?

It aludes to the fact that there's an axiom. A first postulate. Something that's assumed to be true without question.
An uncaused cause. The thing from which all other things follow. The current paradigm's miracle is called The Big Bang.

Every paradigm has at least one such construct/concept.

The paradigm we call "The natural numbers" has its first miracle - the number zero. All successive numbers follow by induction/succession.

What you've discovered is the inverse of the induction principle - you've discovered coinduction. Instead of going from the starting point to its implications - you've worked from the implications to arrive back at the starting point.

That starting point is God. The Miracle. The Sacred Cow.

Or, if you want to use the language of Category theory - it's called an initial object.

Whether you characterise the event as "self-caused " or "uncaused" is immaterial - it exists. Conceptually.