Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God
Based on sensual facts, cosmological arguments say that God exists. One popular fact says that the universe had a beginning. This fact implies the existence of a creator. However, if the universe had a beginning, it is a fact that the universe must have an end. Is this logic consistent with God? I say no.
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) says that our reasoning is founded on two principles, the principle of contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason. So, he says that two kinds of truths exist: those of reason, which are necessary and of which the opposite is impossible, and those of facts, which are contingent and of which the opposite is possible. Since an infinite number of minute inclinations exist in the bodies of things in the universe, Leibniz says that sufficient reason must exist, without limit, for determining contingent truths and truths of fact for the infinite number of things in the universe. Cantor says that two infinities exist. One infinite is God. This infinite is determinate and cannot be exhausted. The other infinite is variable and has no limit.
Over the last twenty-five years, I have conducted research on God and the universe. When doing this research, I found a common thread of thought in a number of personalities. These personalities are Abraham, Moses, Plato, Jesus, Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, Galileo, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Cantor, US founders, and LaRouche. All of these personalities held similar thoughts.
Nicholas of Cusa unites God and the universe with the concepts 'enfold' and 'unfold.' God enfolds things and unfolds things. When things are enfolded, they are in God, And when thing are unfolded, they are in the universe. I do not believe that God oscillates the opposites, unfold and unfold, because God would force us to live in a see-saw universe. So, is is consistent to say that God and the universe existed always. God and the universe never had a beginning and God and the universe will never have an end.
In summary, cosmological arguments are no longer needed.
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) says that our reasoning is founded on two principles, the principle of contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason. So, he says that two kinds of truths exist: those of reason, which are necessary and of which the opposite is impossible, and those of facts, which are contingent and of which the opposite is possible. Since an infinite number of minute inclinations exist in the bodies of things in the universe, Leibniz says that sufficient reason must exist, without limit, for determining contingent truths and truths of fact for the infinite number of things in the universe. Cantor says that two infinities exist. One infinite is God. This infinite is determinate and cannot be exhausted. The other infinite is variable and has no limit.
Over the last twenty-five years, I have conducted research on God and the universe. When doing this research, I found a common thread of thought in a number of personalities. These personalities are Abraham, Moses, Plato, Jesus, Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, Galileo, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Cantor, US founders, and LaRouche. All of these personalities held similar thoughts.
Nicholas of Cusa unites God and the universe with the concepts 'enfold' and 'unfold.' God enfolds things and unfolds things. When things are enfolded, they are in God, And when thing are unfolded, they are in the universe. I do not believe that God oscillates the opposites, unfold and unfold, because God would force us to live in a see-saw universe. So, is is consistent to say that God and the universe existed always. God and the universe never had a beginning and God and the universe will never have an end.
In summary, cosmological arguments are no longer needed.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 7:28 AM
5 Comments:
At 5:50 AM,
Anonymous said…
I inclination not concur on it. I assume nice post. Specially the designation attracted me to read the unscathed story.
At 12:30 PM,
LynMarcus said…
How did you equate a convicted criminal, tax fraudster and leader of a cult , Larouche with those people you mentioned?
Larouche has been running a cult for voer 4 decades based on an endless economic collapse, nuclear war and a New Dark Ages. It just changes depending on the audience. This is a bum who forgave Hitler a few weeks ago and blames the Jolocaust on Harry Reid.
He runs a cult so suckers can work theri lives for a few bucks a day feeding himself and his delusions in luxury.
You can learn more at these sites.
laroucheplanet.info
lyndonlarouchewatch.org
justiceforjeremiah.com
factnet.org under social orgs.
ABout 34 million dollars was stolen from people in your age group by the cult. These are convicted criminals and naive college drop outs who work this side show.
At 4:11 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to LynMarcus,
Certain citizens in the USA do not want to hear any new ideas. These citizens represent a force against all good thinkers such as LaRouche. His new economic revealed a new economy that wold replace the free market economy. This is why many free market economics hate LaRouche. But why should they hate LaRouche when a new and better economy can be installed in the USA?
I actually believe that Lyndon LaRouche is the first 'big thinker' in the USA. So, I can say that he is not a criminal. How can he be a criminal when he knows and interacts with the new Pope and consults with nations such as the China's leaders
What you hear something about LaRouche, it is usually lies. So, I will not be interested in hearing negatives about him.
The people who work with him are not suckers. They choose their lifes's work. The intelligent Black Panthers worked with LaRouche. Do you also consider them as criminals?
I understand that money flows to the LaRouche group because many people want to help him promote his ideas. But, I also learned that the children of some seniors did not get their parent's money at their death. Today, this flow of money is a new way that older citizens can get more effect for their wealth. Many children merely waste the wealth of their parents.
I agree with this new way of using one's earned wealth because children are created by God. Parents do not create children. Parents are only carriers of new life into the universe.
George
At 3:23 PM,
VioAlowha-u-wee! said…
George, please accept that I am very much in agreement with yr work and intention here. I also agree with much of LaRouche's stated intentions. The problem of LaRouche is one of his methods and means: taking advantage of and running people into the ground. I have studied with them, lived near them, never joined, sympathized, financially supported and overall, I find that LaRouche seeks to replace God and the notion of the Second Coming with himself. It is a false religion. Similar to what the prophesized Antichrist will provide. It is hubris to assume that all this good ecumenical peace through development is now possible. It is just not possible. There is a great evil afoot, rising to power. That LaRouche speaks to it and about it -- well great -- but he does not put God and contrition first. No God and national days of repentence first. Fasting and praying to God is what I believe that the USA needs first. Apologies and a step back from inducing Armagiddon. LaRouche has bullied his people - that is what I see. Squeezed them and used them. Those who might excel him were driven out. His best acolytes, the best writers, Webster Tarpley, David Goldman, Robert Dreyfuss, E. William Engdahl. Look them up. LaRouche is brilliant but he is or rather presents himself as the answer - but the answer is not a cult of personality or a stalinist strait jacket that works people like a gulag camp! If you have any questions please email me @pdhinton@gmail.com I like your work.
At 4:48 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Paul,
Thanks for your information.
I never talked to mr. LsRouche. But I studied the material produced by him and his group. I attended some of their meetings for a couple of years.
However, after they told me about the 15th century work of Bishop Nicholas of Cusa of the Roman Church in 1980, I never saw them again.
After mastering Cusa, I knew that I had a a big research program ahead. My book and website are the result of twenty-five years of private research since 1979.
The information from LaRouche is unbelievable and accurate. So what do you think has appened to that group in the 1990s and 2000s? Since be must be approaching death, has a mental problem emerged. He could not be beat in speaking. So a mental problem should not exist.
Anymore info on this group?
Thanks for reading my work.
George
Post a Comment
<< Home