(March 13, 2016 at 3:17 am)TheMuslim Wrote:Like I said earlier, I'm finding this a bit too confusing to understand, hence why I'm asking questions that may seem a bit silly and not extending from what you're actually arguing.(March 13, 2016 at 1:20 am)Irrational Wrote: Ok, but can finite entities not be part of an infinite reality?
Please elaborate. Are you asking if finite entities like galaxies can be part of an infinite set of universes? Sure they can, why not. But I don't see how this would lead to a problem in the argument if that's what you're trying to say. As explained before, the argument doesn't take aggregates or groups (whether they have a finite or infinite number of constituents) as actual realities (I take your "Ok" as a sign that you've understood this).
Ok, I understand your answer to my latest question and will accept it as true unless I realize a flaw with the answer.
So my next question is based on the next quote:
Quote:Therefore, the first ontological proposition, which the human being cannot not know, is the affirmation of the basic reality, and its modality is eternal necessity. And since, as just explained, finite entities, such as the heavens, the earth, the cosmos, and so forth, cannot be the extension of this proposition, its extension is only an Absolute Reality—Who is above the restrictions of conditions, is present with all of the finite realities, and no absence or termination is perceivable with respect to Him.
Bold mine. Why must there be such an extension? Will basic reality not suffice?
