Cosmological Argument

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 18:41, June 8, 2010 by ChiefjusticeDS (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
5d-God

God as a realization of the Cosmological argument. The hand being raised symbolizes the being-guilt of the recipient man

The Cosmological argument is one of the most famously reliable proofs of God's existence. Everyone who is with God knows its truth a priori, however, the argument is completely empirical in method. Although the ontological argument and other heretical nonsense is debated by foolish atheists, the Cosmological argument is truth de facto.This is known even by atheists. Their intellects are simply too small to appreciate it. Peter Byrne has shown us that the factitious disproofs offered are all incorrect. All described in brief here is explained below.


edit Formulation

  • Premise 1: Things happen,
  • Premise 2: Every happening has a cause

Thus there must be a first cause of all happenings, ie: God. All power is concerned with all happenings, so God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent God must be omniscient as well as omnipresent. Thus Christianity is truth.

Furthermore, in Buberean terms:

  • Premise 1: There is happening
  • Premise 2: No happening without rehappening
  • Premise 3: Rehappening is an ontological state

gives one the same conclusion.

edit Consolidation of the argument with criticism

Some atheists argue that the world could be the cause of all happenings, so matter in ontology is reflexively interactive. This is rubbish. Furthermore, if we understand the Buberean term of happening in the sense of Heidegger's (although Heidegger was an atheist, he must have simply stole from a religious believer, pseudo-heidegger) dabeisein, we can conquer this simply with an ontological equation:

<math> x+1=X+1

If we understand the being of the first X to be the same as the being of the second x the ontological equation will hold, proving the argument to be truth. Thus God (again speaking in the terms of pseudo-Heidegger)will be participating in worldhood. The atheist who states that this leads to pantheism is again just speaking shit.

The other argument commonly used against the cosmological argument is that change is indeterminate. Of course, if change was indeterminate, Peter Byrne would be wrong. Let us look at what he has to say about it.

Cquote1 The fundamental deduction is that if ontological reality of objects is to be maintained, there must be order Cquote2

This man is a university professor. We can trust him. Now, ontological reality (vis. independence) results in the non-existence of all objects. It results in nihilistic self destruction of worldhood through the use of moronicism. If we can hold the truth of ontological reality to be based in the observance of God's commandments we can follow with this:

  1. Worldhood is priesthood
  2. No-worldhood is satanism
  3. World-hood is truth-saying

Now, for sake of coherency, the expression 'world-hood is truth saying' shows the sublimity of worldhood in the world. This issue is dealt with further in The Worldhood of The World.

edit The problem of atheism

Atheists are inclined to discard this argument for the incorrect reasons above. This is obviously a psychological trait as the atheist mind is not physiologically different to that of the believer. Perhaps it is more worrying that many believers, even "noted" theologians, are prone to state elementary nonsense in regard to this argument. It may be due to the advance of heretical thought, such as the Ontological argument. Maybe we should therefore spread the truth of cosmology farther. As a specimen of metaphysic cosmology has been widely replaced with astronomy, or the heretical astrology, which means that the truth of understanding is not reached at. It may be a duty of Christian philosophers globally to promote a return of cosmology. Otherwise metaphysics will stay far from what is true.

edit Conclusion

We may now think that it has been subtly proven that God exists. If otherwise, the proof is less subtle, do refrain from looking at such blasphemy as ontology. It's shit.


edit See also

Personal tools
projects