ARE THERE ANY MORE ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE? READ THE FOLLOWING...
Copyright Michael Llenos 2015
PART THREE: MORE ON GOD'S EXISTENCE
[Part One's Dialogues and Part Two's Cosmological Argument may be needed for these notes.]
My Syllogism on God's Existence (summary)
If it is impossible for infinite time to exist in the universe, then time is finite.
But time cannot possibly be infinite, since universal time keeps adding to the past and to the present.
(For one cannot add time to an already infinite amount of time.) Therefore, time is finite and not infinite.
And if there exists no First Cause of the universe, then time is infinite.
However, time is finite and cannot be infinite. So a First Cause of the universe must exist: which must be
the Creator of the universe. And this Creator and God is the only person that can live inside and outside of time.
1. A Cosmological Argument Summary: 
If there are things created, there is a Creator. The skeptic will respond: "I was created by my parents."
Well, let's see, go backwards to who created them (grandparents), then their parents and then their parents, etc..
You cannot go back to infinity or we wouldn't exist, since it would take an infinite amount of time to get to when we were born
(or at any other time for that matter). So if there is a creation, there exists a 'complete/before the Universe/first cause': Creator.
2. St. Anselm of Canterbury: 
I was reading a portion of Anselm's 'the Proslogion' and I thought I would add to St. Anselm's ontological argument, in the following:
1) The statement: "God is that which no greater can exist" and the statement: "God is that which no greater can be thought to exist" must be looked at in a new light. Why? Read on...
2)Which is greater: A God that can be thought not to exist but exists? Or a God that must be thought to exist absolutely or else cannot exist?
3) Obviously, the greater God (of the two mentioned) is the God that can be thought not to exist, since he is a God whose existence is not dependent on public opinion.
3. A new twist on the Stoic belief on a Human’s-reason and ‘Universal-reason’ 
1) My thoughts are finite, so is the rest of my body.
2) I know I am a part of the Universe.
3) It would be ridiculous if I (a part of the Universe) were finite, but that the Universe was infinite as a whole.
4) So the Universe cannot be infinite in ‘time’ or ‘expanse’.
5) Therefore the Universe is ‘finite’ and had a ‘beginning’.
6) The only ‘first cause’ of such a ‘finite Universe’ would have to be something ‘all powerful’. Such an ‘all powerful being’ would have to be God.
4. A New Ontological Argument: The logic of numbers proves that God necessarily exists 
1. We know that the first number is the number one.
2. If we have knowledge that the number one exists, the last number must also exist.
3. But numbers do not end inside our Universe, just like time does not end in our Universe; time keeps adding to a further number forever in our Universe; the same thing is with counting numbers; both time and numbers (in our Universe) are not as great as the last number which is: the infinite. A last number does not exist inside our finite Universe.
4. But only an infinite being can contemplate, or calculate, or count to the number: the infinite. Therefore God exists, since there must be both a beginning and an end to all numbers; and an infinite number can only exist inside an infinite mind. E.g. God says that he is the Alpha and the Omega (meaning: he is the beginning and the end). So God is the very first number one, and he is also the only infinite end.
5. Spinoza and Myself on the Ontological Argument 
On Spinoza and My Take
1) Spinoza believes that: If nothing can prevent an all powerful God from existing, then an all powerful God necessarily exists.
2) I, personally, believe that we can look at Spinoza’s argument from a different perspective. I mean what could prevent an all powerful God from existing? Well, only another all powerful God. So God exists for these two reasons: (1) Because only an all powerful God could prevent another all powerful God from existing, and (2) Because there can only be one all powerful God.
6. The use of Anselm’s Ontological Argument in my Platonic Dialogue #3 
Some may wonder what exactly I am trying to explain in my ‘Platonic Dialogue #3’, when I compared Time and God and said that they were the two greatest things. The following list may help you better understand what I am trying to get across.
1) There are only two possible definitions of God:
(1a) God is that which nothing greater can exist.
(1b) God is that which something greater can exist.
2) To prove (1a) we must refute (1b).
3) If (1b) is correct then what else could be the greatest of all things?
4) It would have to be: TIME. [I mention this in Dialogue #3.]
5) However, TIME needs a Creator, since TIME is finite. Therefore (1b) is not true (since TIME, or the greatest thing, is second only to God, which is truly the greatest thing) and (1b) cannot be used anymore, since the existence of TIME logically proves the existence of God.
6) Therefore only (1a) is the true definition of God, since we know TIME exists.
7. Anselm’s Ontological Argument in my Platonic Dialogue #3 (easier to understand) 
1. God is that which nothing greater can exist. (or)
2. God is that which something greater can exist.
3. Prove #1 by destroying #2.
4. If #2 is correct, what would be the greatest of all things?
5. It would have to be time.
6. However, time needs a creator.
7. So #1 is proven and #2 is refuted.
One of the strongest of arguments capable of ruining Spinoza's Ontological Argument is that someone can say that if there is nothing stopping an all powerful wicked God from existing than an all powerful wicked God exists. However, Spinoza could have replied with the following...
8. On why God is Good and cannot be Wicked 
1) Most would agree that it is harder to be good than to be evil.
2) Meaning, it takes more restraint, strength and intelligence to be a good person than to be an evil person.
3) With this logic we can make the analogy that an all powerful good God would have more restraint, strength and intelligence than an all powerful wicked God.
4) Therefore God can only be good since he is all powerful and to the greatest degree of power and power economy.
9. The Michael Llenos Paradox and Time: Why does Time not have an infinite number to it? 
1) Because there would exist an infinite number of hours inside of infinite time--and if you divided those same hours into an infinite number of minutes--there would exist more infinite number of minutes (in infinite time) than an infinite number of hours (in infinite time).
2) However, this would be impossible if both divisions of time (meaning: hours and minutes) existed inside of infinite time--which they would have to.
3) Therefore, there exists only a finite amount of time in our Universe.
10. Notes to Dialogue # 1 
1. Existing and non-existing both exist inside of time.
2. Things that exist make up the Universe—which is finite.
3. And because we cannot think of the non-existing except inside of time, both the existing and non-existing are finite.
4. And since time is finite, it once did not exist.
5. And what could possibly make finite time but the infinite: which is God.
6. Especially because the non-existing could not do so: since the non-existing was only created, or came into being, after time was created: because it is finite.
11. Why the Universe is Finite (in area) and has no Infinite amount (of area) or Infinite number of space in it? 
1. If the Universe has an infinite area to it, it could therefore be divided into an infinite number of objects (e.g. squares).
2. Plus, if you divided every square in half, you would end up having twice the number of infinite objects.
3. This would not be possible if the number of infinite parts equaled the whole of the infinite area.
4. Meaning, an infinite number of parts are needed to equal an infinite amount of area. The logic being: the infinite has only one greatest number and amount to it.
5. Some may say that you cannot divide the infinite into any parts.
6. However, if that were true, the infinite would be the smallest number (i.e. the number one) and not the largest number (that can be infinitely divided): the infinite itself.
12. What can I be certain of? 
1. ‘I think therefore: I think.’ This alone I am certain of.
2. ‘I think therefore: I exist.’ This is a statement based on knowledge that is not conclusive. ‘I think therefore: I don’t exist.’ This is also a statement based on knowledge that is not conclusive. Therefore these two statements are not certain facts.
3. What can I be certain of besides #1?
4. Answer: my thinking is limited (and finite).
5. My thinking (or thoughts) are limited is proven by the fact that I am not omniscient. And since I am not omniscient, I cannot be omnipotent.
6. The Universe that surrounds my thoughts is also limited (and finite). This is proven by the fact that I, a finite being, can alter my environment. For example, I can destroy weeds by using my finite hands to pick them up from the ground: something I could not do if the Universe was all powerful.
7. Time is finite as well since I exist inside of time's present, and time's present adds to the past each second I am alive, which is impossible with a infinite past.
8. Therefore: time and the Universe need a creator or First Cause. And that First Cause is what we know to be God, since only God can make time from no time and the Universe from no Universe. So the statement "I think therefore: I think" proves that I exist. And the statement "I think therefore: I exist" is also proven to be true.
[Note: Philosophers have it wrong when they say that St. Anselm believed that there was more reality to
human thought ‘ideas’ than what exists in the ‘physical realm’. Not even Plato believed in this. Plato
believed his ‘ideas’ (or the forms) existed somewhere, but they were not just ‘thoughts’ that existed inside
of the human mind. St. Anselm believed in cause and effect of the particular definition of some object.
E.g. if God existed just inside the human mind, God would not be the definition: ‘that which something
greater cannot be thought’. Meaning the definition of the term would be changed, so the term would no
longer apply to the definition: so you would not be describing the same thing as what was originally thought
or discussed about. And if someone uses the argument that Plato believed that these ideas (or forms)
existed in God’s mind, that would be against the point since the entire exercise is just used to prove that
God exists. And why would St. Anselm try to prove that God exists, through the idea that God must originally
exist, so that the forms can make a valid deduction about God existing? For his ontological argument does
not need the idea of the superior reality of 'the forms' for it to work. Learned men, who do not get what St.
Anselm was really trying to say, confuse the ontological argument with such a false interpretation.]
13. STOIC DIALECTIC LOGIC ON PROVING GOD’S EXISTENCE 
1) The ontological argument does not prove that God does not exist.
2) If God does not exist,
The ontological argument cannot help prove that God exists.
3) If God exists,
The ontological argument helps prove that God exists.
4) The ontological argument helps prove that God exists.
Therefore, God exists.
14. ON NUMBERS AGAIN 
1) Is there anyone who believes in the number 44 but not in the number 43? No one. Is there anyone who believes in the number 2 but not in the number 1? No one.
2) Is there anyone who believes in the number 43 but not in the number 44? No one. Is there anyone who believes in the number 1 but not in the number 2? No one.
3) If there is an end, there must also exist a beginning. Also, if there exists a beginning, there must also exist an end.
4) Now the number 1 is the beginning of all numbers, so there must exist an end to all numbers.
5) Therefore, is there anyone who believes in the beginning of all numbers (the number 1) and not in the end of all numbers? No one.
6) But surely numbers do not end in our Universe, since time in our Universe is finite? That is correct.
7) Therefore, the only possibility for there to be an end of all numbers is for God's infinite mind to exist, since only his omniscient mind can count to the number: the infinite.
8) Therefore, God exists, since the number 1 exists.
15. A Universal Deduction 
1. Either the Universe was created by God, or the Universe is just one great miracle.
2. However, if the Universe is just one great miracle: God exists, since only an infinite God can bring about a miracle as great as the Universe.
16. Life as a Computer Program 
Question: How do we know that we are not inside a computer program?
Answer: Because there must be a First Cause to everything. And that First Cause is God.
17. The Original Lawmaker 
1) Physics laws are the written laws of the Universe's early structure.
2) Every written law has its maker.
3) The original lawmaker (and therefore primal maker) of the early Universe can only be God.
4) The original primal Universe is part of the early Law of God.
18. On Example 
Since man can make the argument that the Universe doesn't exist (no matter how false that opinion is),
man could also make the argument that God does not exist, which is a false argument as well.
19. Plato's Logic 
Does anyone believe that the Universe is an effect of a cause or the product of a cause? Yet whoever believes that a product of a cause exists must
also believe that its cause exists. And that greatest and earliest cause must be God.
20. Anselm’s Ontological Argument Re-written 
Axiom for Logic 1.1-2.3
[To exist in reality is greater than just existing in the mind alone.]
1.1 If God is that which nothing greater can exist;
1.2 And if God exists in the mind:
1.3 Then God must exist in reality.
2.1 But God is that which nothing greater can exist;
2.2 And God does exist in the mind:
2.3 Therefore, God must exist in reality.
21. How do we know if God is Male or Female if we have never seen him before? 
God is male because God's love for us is mostly a manly love instead of a mother-like love. However, there are a few exceptions to this rule.
If you don't know what manly love is then read Seneca's essay titled: "On Providence".
22. How do we know that God is the only true God? 
Because there must be a First Cause to all existence: and that can only be either God or the product of God.
23. Why is there Folly and Atheism in the Universe if God exists? 
Because, as God put a premium on wisdom, by making folly easier to follow than the path of wisdom, he also put a premium on
faith: by allowing atheists to come up with many arguments for their disbelief.
24. A Prayer to God on his Existence: based on St. Anselm's Prayer to God for his Ontological Argument 
1) God, I ask you, How could any part (or parts) of you be finite, but that your whole be truly infinite?
The parts that make up your whole must be entirely infinite.
2) Clearly, God, the human mind is finite and you are infinite.
So how could any part of you exist inside our minds, since all parts of you are infinite?
This is impossible.
3) If you cannot exist inside our minds, God, even if you do exist in reality, how is it possible for you to exist inside
our minds: if you do not exist in reality?
This is also impossible, since it is less likely.
4) Therefore, if you, God, do exist, or do not exist: you cannot exist inside of our minds at all. For you, God, are the only thing that is
5) But, God, you do exist inside our minds. How is this possible except that you exist and have placed your infinite imprint inside of our minds?
For nothing is impossible for an omnipotent being, which can only be you.
6) It makes logical sense that your existence, God, is the only possible explanation for you existing in our minds,
and that you, God, exist and have placed your infinite imprint inside of the economy of our minds.
7) Therefore, God, you truly exist in reality.
25. Defending St. Anselm’s Definition of God in his Ontological Argument 
If God is that which nothing greater can be thought, there can only be one of him.
If God is that which something greater can be thought, there must be many of him—since other things would be equal
to him and would also be considered to have an equivalent Godhood.
I mean why would God be special anymore if he had equivalents?
But God, who is omnipotent, can only be singular and he cannot be plural.
Therefore, God must be that which nothing greater can be thought.
So God exists, according to St. Anselm’s ontological argument,
since you cannot use the definition of God that states: God is that which something greater can be thought.
And remember, there are many representations (or objects) that would be equal to God (and would be Gods)
if God is that which something greater can be thought. However, since an omnipotent God can only be singular,
and not plural,
God is that which nothing greater can be thought.
26. On Saintliness 
1. If saintliness is God-like, what does it lack to be fully God?
2. Answer: Omniscience and omnipotence.
3. Non-believers know this and yet they believe being God-like is greater than being fully God, since they don't believe in the existence of God.
4. That’s like saying that a sling a man made is greater than the man himself.
5. Yet, we know that a sling points towards the man that made that sling; while, saintliness points towards God.
27. Another Argument 
1. It is harder to be good than to be evil.
2. Goodness cannot be good unless it exists for all time.
3. Therefore, an all powerful God must exist, since,
only he can be the source of all goodness and only he exists throughout all time.
28. A Wonderful Argument 
1. Goodness’ first cause must be either good or evil.
2. If its cause were evil, it wouldn’t be goodness, but rather evil.
3. And goodness cannot come just from a non-thinking goodness; for that is like saying,
a rock came from its very own self. [And there exists no infinite past in our finite Universe.]
4. Therefore, goodness must have a creator that is good, and that creator must be God.
29. An Ontological Argument based on Matthew 19:17 
No one would deny that goodness exists in the Universe, and that the opposite of goodness is evil.
If goodness is good, it cannot experience any evil. Death and non-existence are both evils.
Therefore, goodness must exist for all time. And, if goodness exists for all time, goodness must be infinite.
And this infinite goodness we know to be God.
30. An Ontological Argument based on what Jesus said. "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one, that is, God:" [Matthew 19:17]* 
Because good and evil are opposites: good cannot be evil and evil cannot be good.
Death and non-existence are both evils. So good must exist for all time, since good cannot die or not exist.
Therefore, good, which exists for all time, must be infinite. And this infinite good we know to be God.
31. A Translation of Jesus’ Ontological Hint in Matthew 19:17 
Axiom for #’s 1-4
[Because good and evil are opposites: good cannot be evil and evil cannot be good.]
1. Death and non-existence are both evils.
2. So good must exist for all time, since good cannot die or not exist.
3. Therefore, good, which exists for all time, must be infinite.
4. And this infinite good is what we know to be God.
[By the way, INFINITE means existing inside and outside of finite time. And only
finite time exists in the Universe as time.]
32. The Holy Trinity Simplified 
God the Father=1st Cause
Jesus Christ=2nd Cause
The Holy Spirit=A mystery to mankind.
33. On Erasmus 
Erasmus tells us to embrace folly because it is wise. However, the wisdom in folly is caused by wisdom
and not folly. For there exists wisdom in folly, but not folly in wisdom.
34. On Plato's Euthyphro 
Plato's Euthyphro proves that if there are many different gods there would exist many
divergent laws. However, if there exists only one law pattern then there is only
one God. The physical laws of the Universe are the same no matter where you go in the Universe.
E.g. the laws of gravity and the laws of light and the laws of atoms are the same throughout
the Universe. Therefore, the basic building
blocks of the Universe,
that only have one basic design and pattern, only have one designer and pattern maker. Therefore,
there exists only one God.
35. The Wager 
The God of the Old Testament either exists or doesn't exist. If he exists, all of his enemies are doomed.
If he does not exist, all of his enemies are doomed.
36. We are all Demagogues 
Montaigne thinks it is funny that The Koran teaches us that there will be eating
and drinking on Judgement Day after the soul is separated from the body after the first death.
I don't think it is a laughing matter, however.
I rather think that eating and drinking will go on forever. Why? Because we will always have emotions.
And if we don't always have emotions we will be nothing but robots. And one way to relieve
the soul is by distracting it by eating and drinking. And there is no sin in eating and drinking
(clean foods), but rather in what exits the mouth. See Matthew 26:29.
The Forbidding of Blood as a Food Item 
God's Law in the Torah, Book of Acts, and The Koran, states that blood is forbidden as a food
item. We know that running blood is forbidden, but there still exists blood in the meat. So
how do we judge this law?
I believe the following is how we should distinguish. For there exists three kinds of
animal foods before they are cooked:
1) More blood than meat.
2) Half blood and half meat.
3) More meat than blood.
Only number 3 is lawful to eat. However, one must still drain off blood that runs,
and the meat must be cooked, of course, so the small quantity of blood in the meat is killed
off in the cooking process.
38. On The Wager 
We as finite beings can neither grasp nothing nor the infinite.
So we dwell in the finite as finite beings. To grasp both nothing and the infinite is to grasp
the beginning and the end. So only God can understand both nothing and the infinite.
He is the Alpha and the Omega. The closest idea we can have of the nothing is an empty space
with a white or black background. But that is not the nothing. And the closest idea we can have
of the infinite is the term infinite and its definition. But that is not the infinite.
39. Newtonian Absolute Time vs. The Theory of Relativity 
Since the First Cause of the Universe is either God or the product of God, finite time
has already been measured by God's infinite/omnipotent mind. God's infinite mind
has created the standard measurement for finite time--which is Absolute Time. But since we do not know
this standard of time's measurement inside of God's mind, the Theory of Relativity is falsely
considered to prevail (by scientists) as the only true standard of time in the cosmos. Still it is prudent for man
to base his measure of time on Relativity since the standard of Absolute Time is unknown to him--and
therefore the Theory of Relativity brings greater pragmatic economy in astronomy, mathematics and physics.
Now because Newtonian Absolute Time is true time, what is time according to the Theory of Relativity?
Relative time is subjective time partly divorced from God's objective true timeline. So relative time
will always be a portion of true Absolute Time but never true time over all.
Stoic Logic of Pro-Relativity
If we need a standard of time,
And we do know Absolute Time,
We do not need Relativity.
But we do need a standard of time,
And we do not know Absolute Time,
Therefore, we need Relativity.
*For since time is logically proven to be finite, there has to have been a First Cause of all creation.
To clarify, all time, in relation to the First Cause of all creation, is what Newton calls Absolute Time. All
time in relation to other times, which have nothing to do with the First Cause of all creation,
fall under the category of Relativity.
40. Jesus' power to Bless Mankind 
It was that most wicked creature, the evil one, who by promising a blessing (by the
fruit of a healthy tree) that ruined mankind. It was Jesus, that most righteous creature,
that suffered a promised curse (by being hung on a dead tree) which saved mankind, turning a curse into a
blessing. Jesus had to join with the cross and die with it: so that when he rose from the dead
he would have life and power, and so would the cross, which was now a part of him.
41. Platonic Dialogue between Anselm and Gaunilo 
Anselm: Would you agree that God has the definition: that which nothing greater can exist?
Meaning he is the greatest of all things?
Anselm: So if God exists as a thought in the human mind, he must exist in reality. Because
existing in reality is greater than just existing in the mind of man.
Gaunilo: I agree as well.
Anselm: However, if God exists only as an invented thought
of man, then he must be that which something greater can exist. Especially,
since existing in thought alone is not as great as existing in reality.
Gaunilo: I agree.
Anselm: But, however, the definition has now changed for the
term God. So God is now that which something
greater can exist.
Gaunilo: I also agree.
Anselm: But didn't we say before that God's definition was contrary
Gaunilo: We did. I think.
Anselm: And that God was that which nothing greater can exist?
Gaunilo: I believe so. For that is the first thing people think of when they first hear the
term God. It is only later that some people change that definition.
Anselm: And God cannot be both: that which nothing
greater can exist, and that which something greater can exist? He can only be one
or the other?
Gaunilo: That is true.
Anselm: And some may say that although the idea of God is that which nothing greater can exist,
he is really that which something greater can exist.
Gaunilo: I think that is also true.
Anselm: However, if what they say is true, then God is both that which nothing greater can exist (in the mind),
and, that which something greater can exist (in the mind) as well. For both the idea of God and the idea of the reality
of God exist in the mind.
Gaunilo: I believe so.
Anselm: So for God not to exist, he has to be both that which nothing greater can exist and that
which something greater can exist. But, however, as we already pointed out,
God can never be a dichotomy in that way; and this also includes even just in thought. For he must
be either one or the other (the greatest, or not the greatest): or else the argument is contradicting itself.
So God is left with only one true definition that is not a dichotomy: the first most original one.
Anselm: And, since the first and only true definition of God is: that which nothing greater can exist,
God must not exist just solely in the mind; he must also exist in reality.
Gaunilo: I agree.
Anselm: Therefore God must exist.
Gaunilo: Yes, I can see that all of your reasoning proves that God exists.
(1) The dichotomy states: God exists, but God also doesn't exist. So it is a contradictory
(2) The first definition states: God exists in the mind, so God also exists in reality.
Meaning, God exists, so God also exists. So it is not a contradictory statement;
therefore, it is truthful unlike the dichotomy.
(3) And, remember, to refute the idea of God, one has to first admit that the idea of God
is that which nothing greater can exist. For that is the original idea of God.
For if you say: the original idea of God is that which something greater can exist,
what you are basically doing is not refuting the monotheistic proposition at all.
And to refute the ontological argument you must state and then refute the
monotheistic proposition: or, that God is that which nothing greater can exist.
The idea is that the non-believer must refute the ontological argument, or else,
the ontological argument refutes the non-believer and wins its case against the non-believer.
However, the ontological argument has already been proven to win its case that God exists.
(4) You must refute the first premise of the ontological argument without replacing the
first premise to prove that God doesn't exist. This is an impossible thing to do. Therefore God exists.
(5) See the Gospel of John 1:1. If the WORD is the same as God 'the creator', and the WORD exists
in the mind, then God exists in the mind.
42. On Agnosticism and The Big Bang Theory 
Some agnostics will say that it is just as equally possible for an infinite God to have
created the Big Bang as it would have been for a large clump of matter to do so.
However, the monotheist does not take into account the Big Bang Theory for
God's earliest existence. Instead, he takes into account the greater logic of the First Cause of all
things. And the First Cause of all things must either be God or the product of God.
43. The Six Human Rights of the Kingdom of Heaven 
To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you must do at least one of the six acts of mercy, mentioned
in Matthew 25:31-46, for a homeless man. If you do one of these acts once you will be saved from
God's angry wrath at the Judgment. For if you do one of these six acts for a homeless man, you have
done it for the Christ (Jesus). But what is the promise from God? What do we get in return?
Well, the more good works of this kind, the more we will be rewarded, which is my personal belief.
Before I thought to myself, what if these six acts symbolically represent every man's reward?
But what is the reward for all of us who are written in Christ's book? What would automatically be given
to each one of us? Well, it surely must be: 1) free Food, 2) free Drink, 3) free Clothing, 4) free Shelter, 5) free
Medical Care and Hospital Services, and 6) free Prison System to keep the evil people away from us.
(And in the Kingdom of God this latter means a place of Hell where the wicked and selfish will burn
for eternity.) But when you look at this list, it is only reasonable that Christ looks at these six human rights as
not just rights of the winners at the Judgment but also human rights that politicians should grant
their supporters. For that indeed would be just before the eyes of God. And women who think
of aborting their child must realize that they are depriving another human being of all six mercies
of God and Christ.
44. More on the Big Bang Theory and Spinoza 
The Big Bang was finite in size. How do we know this? Because the universe is finite in size.
How do we know this? Because the universe is expanding in size and therefore cannot be
infinite in size. How then can a finite Big Bang stop an all powerful God from existing? It cannot.
But, you say, nothing existed before the Big Bang. Okay, then, how can nothing have
the power to stop an all powerful God from existing? It cannot.
45. On Science 
All science is based on cause and effect. And
if you believe science works then cause and effect must work as well.
And, since time is finite, there must be a first cause to all creation. And that first cause must
be either God or the product of God. So since science validates cause and effect, science also
must validate the belief (and economy) of the first cause of all things--which is either God
or the product of God.
46. On Gravity's Cause and a new theory for the Big Bang Theory 
Everything that is never ending can be infinite in degree through God's infinite properties:
e.g. time in God's infinite mind. Time is never ending, so infinite time must exist, which
is God himself. For God says in the Bible that he alone is the ending and the beginning. All of the universe
(or what The Koran calls the 7 heavens, and what Nostradamus calls the 8 spheres) is finite--see
The Koran 13:8.
So the smallest particles of the universe's micro-universe disappear and retrograde into the past,
since they cannot get any smaller--and
the smaller the particle the faster it does this. This retrograding and time traveling motion (in
enough amounts) is what causes gravity on moons, planets, stars and especially black holes, which
is another reason why planets and stars orbit and spin. The more of the time traveling micro-particles
are created and disappear the more gravity has economy of force in a body of matter and in its
surroundings of space-time. Now
these smallest micro-particles must be created from somewhere, and I believe they are created from
quantum forces crushing and colliding with one another. And the more economically massive these forces
the greater the gravity. Where do these micro-particles head to once they disappear? They head into the
past, but how many of these micro-particles head into the past and arrive there
depends economically on how many
there are and how strong they are. Of course, the weaker the particle, the more likely it will lose its
force and wither away. I said, in another passage of my writings, that their aim is the Big Bang: this
I believe is true.
The following is a summary of this new idea of the universe creating itself:
1. The universe is finite so it had a beginning, which is the Big Bang itself.
2. Because the micro universe is not never ending in decreasing size: the smallest micro-particles
must go somewhere, and so they travel into the past. (This is analogous to the backwards energy
of waves hitting the beach. It's called undertow. The energy of the wave travels backwards and underneath
the incoming waves. Micro-particles travel backwards to the beginning of the Big Bang because they
are forced there by the backwards rush of energy.)
3. This process of the smallest micro-particles travelling into the past is responsible for all of the gravity
in the universe's moons, planets, stars and black holes. (For once the micro-particle disappears
and travels backwards in time, towards the Big Bang, that micro-particle
creates a small gravitational suction like force in its recently departed surroundings of space-time.)
This sunction like force is the reason gravity exists in the universe.
4. The smallest micro-particles that travel into the past accumulate into the material for the
Big Bang itself. The smallest micro-particles that travel into the past are the fuel (and perhaps even the
ignition) for the
Big Bang explosion.
5. What this theory means is that the universe created itself through the smallest micro-particles
time travelling into the past.
6. This theory of the universe creating itself does away with the idea that the universe (and Big Bang)
came from a vacant void, which is, to this day, a weak argument used by scientists.
7. However, being a monotheist Christian, I still believe that God created the universe. And that
God created the universe still will always be the stronger argument.
47. Six Summarized Proofs of God: 
1. If God is supremely powerful,
For nothing has the power to stop him from existing.
2. If God can do anything,
For those asleep or dead can do nothing.
3. If God is all good,
For death and non-existence are evils.
4. If God is all wise,
For only an all wise God could have created the all pervading natural laws of the universe.
5. If men are good,
For men can only be perfected through God's grace.
6. If men are bad,
For only a loving and patient God can tolerate the evils of men.
48. A Regimen for Faith: 
1. The Skeptical Man's Faith
"There are so many planets in our universe; why would Jesus Christ come down to our planet?"
"That question and logic proves that Christianity must be true; for that means Christianity is not based on probability for it to be true."
2. The Impatient Man‘s Faith
"I believe in God."
"Why do you think that?"
"I prayed and my prayer didn't come true."
3. The Wicked Man's Faith
"I believe in God."
"Why do you think that?"
"I'm a goner."
4. So if you are a skeptic, or impatient, or wicked (or all of the above); what is there to stop you from believing in God and Jesus?
49. Categories: 
1. If Christians eagerly awaited the beginning of Bible prophecy fulfillment the first 300 years of Christianity, wouldn't it make more logical
sense for Christians to more eagerly await such fulfillment 2,000 years later? We should all eagerly await Bible prophecy fulfillment.
2. If not even the servants of God are totally perfect, then less so will atheists be.
3. God gives atheists many complex arguments not for them to sound wise,
but for their fall to corruption to be all the greater.
4. If honoring evil is the root behind all of our present troubles, we need to correct such troubles by honoring God.
5. What is the source of all life? Is it not God or the product of God? Yet, whoever believes in the product of God
must also believe in God.
6. Spinoza's pantheism is rejected by mainstream Christianity--including myself. Spinoza might argue:
What is the universe? Is it not God or the product of God?
Yet, whoever believes in the product of God must also believe in God.
7. The Bible proves that God must exist. For if God does not exist, what would be the purpose of the Bible?
8. One of the proofs that makes valid the religion of Islam is the story of Hagar and her son Ishmael in the Book of Genesis.
Even the most orthodox of Christians and Jews acknowledge a connection there. "...and I will make him a great nation."
50. More Stoic dialectic: 
1. Because God exists,
He has enemies.
If he didn't exist,
He would have no enemies.
God has enemies,
Therefore he exists.
2. Because God exists,
Many people believe in him.
If God didn't exist,
No one would believe in him.
Many people believe in God,
Therefore God exists.
51. The Law of God is Good: 
1. The first law (or first commandment) given to Adam was not to eat the fruit of a forbidden and therefore unlawful tree. (Genesis 2:16-17)
2. As a reward for obeying this first commandment, Adam became the royal taxonomist with
a home in paradise. (Genesis 2:19-20)
3. When he later on disobeyed this first commandment, Adam was forced to become a tiller of land outside of paradise. (Genesis 3:23)
4. The lesson to be learned in this story is that if you obey the Lord God you can live a safe and happy lifestyle, while if
you disobey God's commandments, you will end up a farmer battling snakes.
52. What is the general idea of Lady Luck? 
Answer: She is Relativity, which rules over all finite beings. (See Appendix 4)
1. Things change in this universe based on one's relative perspective.
2. Machiavelli says: when the times change, so does one's fortune. So both times and places are relative.
3. For St. Paul to be successful, he had to be everything to everyone. This was so he could be the most successful in preaching the gospel.
4. For Odysseus to be successful, he had to base his conversation on everyone's belief system.
5. The only thing not subject to Lady Luck is the Creator.
6. Wisdom (or virtue) is one of the only things that can impede Lady Luck.
53. God the Greatest 
1. Isn't God that which nothing greater can exist?
2. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
3. For if God doesn't exist in reality, he is that which something greater can exist.
4. But God is that which nothing greater can exist.
5. Therefore, God exists in reality.
54. Another Argument for God's Existence 
1. The greatest of all things is combined omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
2. If the universe lacks such things, it is not the greatest of all things.
3. But the universe (besides God) is the greatest of all things.
4. Therefore, combined omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence must exist in the universe.
5. And this combined force is God.
55. God is not created 
1. If God doesn't exist then he is a creation of mankind's thoughts.
2. But what makes more sense: that man created God or that God created man?
3. What makes more sense: that man created the universe or that God created the universe?
4. For God and matter existed before the beginning of the universe.
5. And mankind was created during (or after) the beginning of the universe.
56. See Appendix 4 On Probability 
The favorite argument-trick of atheists is to make up arguments which state that proof of God is non-necessary; meaning, proof of God cannot be proven with 100% proof all of the time. But that is only because we humans are finite beings. We cannot be 100% certain about anything all of the time. What must we finite human beings do then? We must do the only thing we can do: we must judge by higher probability all of the time. That is the reason faith in God is a journey because the more we practice our faith the stronger our faith in God's existence becomes. It is only God the Father who knows everything with 100% certainty. Only he has an infinite mind.
57. Another Deduction on God's Existence: does the universe talk and think? 
1. We know the universe exists even if God does not exist.
2. If God does not exist, we know that the universe as a whole is the greatest of all things.
[Yes, I know this contradicts Platonic dialogue 3. I'm trying to cover all of the bases.]
3. We also know that it is greater to be alive than to be dead.
4. If the universe is the greatest of all things, it must be alive then.
5. Therefore, the universe is alive and has conciousness.
6. And this universal conciousness is what we know to be God.
7. So we know for a fact that God exists because the universe exists.
[For either God exists or God (a sort of universal force with conciousness) exists. Either way God exists: so go to church,
mosque, or synagogue.]
58. Why must the reward of evil be so harsh: to burn in the lake
of fire? 
1. The punishment must be increased, so that the reward will be increased.
2. For you cannot have a reward without a looming punishment.
3. And you cannot have a punishment without a looming reward.
59. The Superiority of Religion 
1. Mankind uses arguments to believe that God exists, and mankind also doesn't use any arguments to
believe that God exists.
2. For atheists, to believe that God doesn't exist, they can only use arguments. They do not
have any faith that God doesn't exist.
3. Therefore, believers have an advantage over atheists through their dual use of both
arguments and faith--while atheists can only employ arguments to prove their viewpoint.
60. The Superiority of Religion 
1. How could perfection (or God) exist solely in the mind when the mind is not perfect?
2. Therefore, the mind could not create perfection.
3. So God is not a creation of the mind.
4. Perfection must have originated outside the mind.
5. Therefore, God (or perfection) must exist in reality.
* Scripture taken from Kings James Version of the Bible. [Public Domain]
All texts are copyrighted by Michael Llenos 2014-2015