Originally posted by 37818
View Post
For one, your view of God is mythical. And so that substantive evidence of God is not even something you would even bother to consider - even if you knew of what would be that evidence.
Why should you? Let alone anyone else for that matter.
The meaning of the term or what can be observed? The mere meaning of the term can be understood to mean everything (known and not known to us). Limiting the term to mean what is physically observable, our known universe - cosmos as it is sometimes called.
It is a supposition as to the supposed possibility of the observed universe actually being greater than what is observed to be finite.
Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be God. [Everything is not uncaused.]
A couple things here. Metaphysical arguments can be nonsensical. Not that they should be. Nowhere in this thread have I proposed any kind of Cosmological Argument. As you seem to resist that there is a fundamental difference between existence and cause. I have argued Uncaused Existence not the Uncaused Cause. The major typical flaw of the Cosmological Arguments is that any infinite regression is disallowed as being impossible.
Which never existed in reality.
Comment