Why all "Logical Proofs Of God" fail ...

[Rampant.A.I.]

… put formally put in the Quantum Eternity Theorem, with numerous cosmological models (including one by Carroll) in which the universe persists infinitely into the past and the future.

Pardon my ignorance of advanced quantum physics, but I cannot imagine that to mean temporal persistence as long as big-bang cosmology holds to the idea that space-time itself came into being. Nevertheless, Aquinas’s 1st and 2nd way would still apply to an eternally existing physical universe, since they deal with the fact that things preserve their “whatness” even as they undergo change.

…ALL [ontological arguments] import some dangerously dubious premise or presupposition… all of them…import the ridiculous assumption that existence is a property of an object.

Don’t you think it is silly to have an apple before you and say it doesn’t exist?

The adjective “existing” does not add anything to the apple, because you already have tacit awareness of the apple’s existence, without stating it explicitly. With respect to sensible things, people know them as both substantive and particular. You are aware that the apple has a material component even as you are also aware that it is a particular thing, i.e. an apple, and not say a flower or a pint of beer. To my mind, it is obvious that every sensible thing must have both form and substance. Most people can identify these as distinct properties in thought (abstractly), even if they are never distinct in actuality. And since real things continue in their “whatness” as material things, even as they undergo change, it makes sense to look for principles that preserve and inform the many and varied things in sensible reality. As for now, I call these two principles primal matter and intentional agency. I do not know what to call this synthesis other than God.

…they ALL rely…on…Aristotlean Metaphysics, which I don't think can work, although that's still an open question in the philosophical community.

And I think it works, but then again, it’s an open question, yes?

…Why do you want a logical proof of God's existence in the first place?... we're talking about the methods and the stakes. What do you hope to gain by attempting to prove God's existence?

Unlike the neo-Scholastics, I do not start with ontological proofs, although I do accept them as a consequence of my own philosophical studies.

I don't think any theoretical physicists are out there arguing space-time "came itself into being." Sounds rather messy.



Do you have real substantial proof of your "tacit awareness" (Jung's Oceanic Feeling) of God's existence, or are you content continuing the text version of the above image?