Proving God in 20 statements

[smfortune]

The problem with the first cause argument is that it can be thought of as circular in that it begs the question of an external cause. My argument does not do that. Only a causation is needed. Internal or external. This was explicitly stated in Note (ii) of the proof. However, the proof itself isn't a first cause (cosmological) argument. If anything it is more aligned with ontological arguments. But even then, it skips over the criticism of an appeal to infinity as an abstract concept since infinity is itself necessarily proved within the proof itself. In other words, infinity CANNOT be abstract because it necessarily exist for an ultimate explanation of the Universe. This also was explicitly stated in the Notes to the proof; Note (vi). So, yes, I have materially improved on both the cosmological and ontological arguments.

Ok I'm going to re-read your proof. This might be interesting. I don't quite understand, I also went TMR root even though I took model logic in university, it still hurts my head.

Happy reading. Thanks dude.