Beginning of Beginning

There must be something before apologetics. A posteriori has no meaning without a priori; a priori = before and a posteriori = after. There must also be something before a priori, literally before, before. Just as there must be beginning of beginning, there must be beginning of before.

?

Beginning of beginning is the first boundary of dualism within monism. Beginning of beginning is the beginning of dualism within monism. Ultimately simultaneous literally means objects exist inside each other closer than touching without being identical. Objects that exist with beginning can be ultimately simultaneous with each other and ultimately simultaneous with eternal, but cannot be identical with eternal.

?

It is necessary there is beginning of beginning. Beginning of beginning could not, not exist, because something does exist with beginning and everything that exists with beginning must be caused to begin.

?

Cosmogony is an explanation (= abstraction) of something that could cause both physical category and immaterial category begin to exist. Cosmogony is an abstraction about beginning of beginning. Science of physics has no cosmogony in their cosmology.

?

The ontological proof is a priori. I like Thomas Aquinas definitive axiomatic (obviously true and does not need to be proved; Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary, Oxford Languages, etc.) statement for which there is no rational, apologetics defeat. This statement literally makes atheism irrational, however strong the feelings about it remain and however great the confusion. There is a set of natural a priori axioms that are instances of first information prior to all possible or actual abstraction, upon which all abstraction, without exception, depends.

?

“…that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.” Thomas Aquinas1.

1.????? Summa Theologiae , Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920; online edition 2017, by Kevin Knight

Descriptions, names, definitions, explanations, identifying properties, functions, relations and interactions, etc., are all abstractions. Abstractions about what caused beginning of beginning are all subject to being incomplete, inconsistent and false.

?

Direct sentient feeling experience that is contemplation without any separation between subject to consciousness, objects of consciousness and consciousness itself, cannot be incomplete, inconsistent or false. Abstraction descriptions of it can be. Abstractions can only be blind person descriptions of seeing in the dark, like one blind man says the elephant is a wall, another says it is a boa constrictor snake, and another says it is a tree trunk (all of which are metaphorical abstractions). No quantity or quality of apologetics argument goes anywhere useful, with the possible exception, the blind men all arrive at the illumination of not, not, which literally means not only. For instance, the elephant is not only a wall, not only a snake and not only a tree.

?

Some common names (= abstractions) for that which causes beginning of beginning include God, Allah, Yahweh, Brahman, etc. Alternately the names could be terms understood to be properties, functions and relations, of God, but such terms would be more correct as references to God if they are capitalized. For instance, Eternal, Aseity, Maker, Divine Simplicity, Creator, First Cause, Ground of Being, Being Itself, That Which Exists Without Beginning, That Which Causes to Be, Ultimate Concern, Wholly Other, etc. That would be correct because omni-properties exist with reference only to God, but not anything that exists with a beginning. God is literally identical with their properties (= monism with no intrinsic dualism).

?

All the names (= abstractions) ego consciousness invents for that which causes beginning of beginning, are equally valid. They are equally valid in the sense that ineffable is not literally about God, rather it is about the limits of ego consciousness to see, know, understand and grok God. Ineffable is always with reference to the subject to consciousness not to the objects of consciousness.

?

Direct personal sentient feeling experience (the actual experience, not the abstraction description of it) between private instances of ego consciousness and God (that which exists without beginning) cannot be true or false, they can only be different from each other. True and false category distinctions are exactly, only and always strictly ontologically and epistemologically limited to objects that exist with beginning.