There was no begining

[Bahman]

Lets assume that there was a beginning lets call it B

1. There was a beginning
2. This means that there was a point B at which there was no even before, no change before
3. This also means that there was point B at which there was an single event after, one single change after
4. This means that point B is anomalous since it separate change from no change
5. This anomaly is an entity that should exist to explain the current subject matter
6. This means that we have to assume a point at which this anomaly start to exist which requires changes leading to infinite regression
7. hence (1) is wrong

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lets assume that there was a beginning lets call it B

1. There was a beginning
2. This means that there was a point B at which there was no even before, no change before
3. This also means that there was point B at which there was an single event after, one single change after
4. This means that point B is anomalous since it separate change from no change
5. This anomaly is an entity that should exist to explain the current subject matter
6. This means that we have to assume a point at which this anomaly start to exist which requires changes leading to infinite regression
7. hence (1) is wrong

Divine Revelation and Catholic Dogma say differently. You have about beat this horse to death. We Catholics and you will just have to agree to disagree. Trying to get you to see our point is a waste of time and you trying to get us to agree with you is a waste of time.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Divine Revelation and Catholic Dogma say differently. You have about beat this horse to death. We Catholics and you will just have to agree to disagree. Trying to get you to see our point is a waste of time and you trying to get us to agree with you is a waste of time.

Linus2nd

What is wrong with my logic?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Lets assume that there was a beginning lets call it B

1. There was a beginning

Given that there is existence, and given that existence is in a constant state of change, we can assume that there was a single point from which existence came into being, the inital action which set in motion all future reactions, otherwise known as the beginning

1. This means that there was a point B at which there was no even before, no change before

True. Although the concept of “before” the beginning is meaningless, since “before” is a concept inherent to time, with only exists after the beginning. Since time is a construct of the physical reality, before the beginning (which is before physical existence) there was no time, and therefore the concept of “before” becomes meaningless.

1. This also means that there was point B at which there was an single event after, one single change after

Still correct. The beginning set in motion all actions and reactions which would occure “after” it.

1. This means that point B is anomalous since it separate change from no change

Anomalous: deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected.

This is where you start to break down. Standard, normal and expected are meaningless concepts at the beginning, because before the beginning there was nothing, and therefore no criteria by which to judge what is standard or normal. Furthermore, even making the assumption that it is anomalous is sort of non-sequitor because it requires a subjective definition of what is normal, which is not something you, as a finite being, are really capable of defining on a universal level.

1. This anomaly is an entity that should exist to explain the current subject matter

Non-sequitor, you’re making logical leaps which do no flow form the premise. There’s no reason that the anomaly has to be an entity. The anomaly could just as simply be the result of the action of an entity, and not the entity itself, which would cause a problem in your next “point”.

1. This means that we have to assume a point at which this anomaly start to exist which requires changes leading to infinite regression

Since, as I showed above, the anomaly is not required to be a being, this point is null.

1. hence (1) is wrong

None of your points have been right since number four, so your conclusion is flawed.

I’m going to put this as nicely as I can… but there’s really not a nice way of putting you.

You are absolutely atrocious at logical deduction… I’ve read several of your threads, wherein you attempt to argue against God through any number of flawed premises. You completely reject logical arguments when they are put forward to you, and frequently ignore valid points when they contradict your pres-assumed notions.

Put simply, you limit your own growth by rejecting anything you don’t like.

That’s about as nice as I can put it, and now I will take my leave of this thread. Instead of wasting your time trying to do something you’re really just not very good at, why don’t you actually try reading Church philosophers. They’ve addressed this… and pretty much every other “argument” you’ve made in your other threads ad-infinitum, and do a far better job of point out the flaws in the logic than most of us can.

God Bless, I hope your journey leads you to real knowledge.

 

[Netty1]

@ ProdglArchitect…your explanation is a “keeper”!

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Neofight]

What is wrong with my logic?

What’s wrong with your logic is you are not considering all available data (or are cherry picking what you choose to consider and what not to consider).

If your “beginning” is based on Genesis, then you are only considering the beginning of the universe (the heavens and the earth).

If you would also consider John’s beginning (see John chapter 1), you would see a beginning that is not defined as merely a starting point, nor is it linked to the human constraint of time.

Peace and all good!

 

[Tom_Baum]

Lets assume that there was a beginning lets call it B

1. There was a beginning
2. This means that there was a point B at which there was no even before, no change before
3. This also means that there was point B at which there was an single event after, one single change after
4. This means that point B is anomalous since it separate change from no change
5. This anomaly is an entity that should exist to explain the current subject matter
6. This means that we have to assume a point at which this anomaly start to exist which requires changes leading to infinite regression
7. hence (1) is wrong

Are you trying to say that if you can not “conceive of” something in your mind than there is no way that it can be?

Could be one of the reasons, and by far not even close to the most important reason, why God created and you didn’t.

 

[Bahman]

Given that there is existence, and given that existence is in a constant state of change, we can assume that there was a single point from which existence came into being, the inital action which set in motion all future reactions, otherwise known as the beginning

True. Although the concept of “before” the beginning is meaningless, since “before” is a concept inherent to time, with only exists after the beginning. Since time is a construct of the physical reality, before the beginning (which is before physical existence) there was no time, and therefore the concept of “before” becomes meaningless.

Still correct. The beginning set in motion all actions and reactions which would occure “after” it.

This is where you start to break down. Standard, normal and expected are meaningless concepts at the beginning, because before the beginning there was nothing, and therefore no criteria by which to judge what is standard or normal. Furthermore, even making the assumption that it is anomalous is sort of non-sequitor because it requires a subjective definition of what is normal, which is not something you, as a finite being, are really capable of defining on a universal level.

Non-sequitor, you’re making logical leaps which do no flow form the premise. There’s no reason that the anomaly has to be an entity. The anomaly could just as simply be the result of the action of an entity, and not the entity itself, which would cause a problem in your next “point”.

Since, as I showed above, the anomaly is not required to be a being, this point is null.

None of your points have been right since number four, so your conclusion is flawed.

I’m going to put this as nicely as I can… but there’s really not a nice way of putting you.

You are absolutely atrocious at logical deduction… I’ve read several of your threads, wherein you attempt to argue against God through any number of flawed premises. You completely reject logical arguments when they are put forward to you, and frequently ignore valid points when they contradict your pres-assumed notions.

Put simply, you limit your own growth by rejecting anything you don’t like.

That’s about as nice as I can put it, and now I will take my leave of this thread. Instead of wasting your time trying to do something you’re really just not very good at, why don’t you actually try reading Church philosophers. They’ve addressed this… and pretty much every other “argument” you’ve made in your other threads ad-infinitum, and do a far better job of point out the flaws in the logic than most of us can.

God Bless, I hope your journey leads you to real knowledge.

I am going to simply disregards your post for two reason. First, you deny a healthy discussion unless you accept otherwise. Second, I found poison in your word which was not simply pleasing to me, so I ask Jesus which kind of fellowship do you have?

 

[Bahman]

What’s wrong with your logic is you are not considering all available data (or are cherry picking what you choose to consider and what not to consider).

If your “beginning” is based on Genesis, then you are only considering the beginning of the universe (the heavens and the earth).

If you would also consider John’s beginning (see John chapter 1), you would see a beginning that is not defined as merely a starting point, nor is it linked to the human constraint of time.

Peace and all good!

But know that earth was not created, in another word it was formed. Either way around the earth has a beginning, one is natural which plausible, and another one is eternal which is not plausible since we know it. Do you want to know how it should be eternal otherwise?

 

[Neofight]

Do you want to know how it should be eternal otherwise?

No, not really. You see, that’s the difference between faith and non-belief.

Peace and all Good!

 

[Bahman]

Are you trying to say that if you can not “conceive of” something in your mind than there is no way that it can be?

I am saying the opposite. I would accept what is conceiving to my mind based on logic when I find something inconveniencing or in another word illogical. There is no way to marry something illogical with something which is logical. So I accept both and put one in one basket so called lie, and the second one in the second basket so called truth.

Could be one of the reasons, and by far not even close to the most important reason, why God created and you didn’t.

Because the concept of beginning is anomalous to God which is eternal. Simply you cannot marry a lie and truth together. I can open this argument if you wish.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I am saying the opposite. I would accept what is conceiving to my mind based on logic when I find something inconveniencing or in another word illogical. There is no way to marry something illogical with something which is logical. So I accept both and put one in one basket so called lie, and the second one in the second basket so called truth.

Because the concept of beginning is anomalous to God which is eternal. Simply you cannot marry a lie and truth together. I can open this argument if you wish.

As far as “I am saying the opposite”, not really, you are saying that what you can not conceive of is illogical and a lie or did I misunderstand you?

I asked, “Are you trying to say that if you can not “conceive of” something in your mind than there is no way that it can be?”

Unless I misunderstood you, you said the same exact thing with different words.

What is the “lie” and what is the “truth” that I am supposedly marrying?

Is it that whatever you can not conceive of is a lie to you whether it is true or not?

If you can “conceive” of something that is not true, would you still throw that in the “truth basket”?

Just because something is “illogical” does not mean that it is not true.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I am going to simply disregards your post for two reason. First, you deny a healthy discussion unless you accept otherwise. Second, I found poison in your word which was not simply pleasing to me, so I ask Jesus which kind of fellowship do you have?

But, you’re proving my point. You’re doing exactly what I said you always do. You don’t like what I said, so you disregard my post. Also, your first point doesn’t make ant sense… deny healthy discussion unless I accept otherwise…? That’s not even a complete thought…

You call my words poison because they are not pleasing to you… you do realize that this is EXACTLY what I was talking about, right? I mean, you couldn’t have proven my point more effectively if you tried. You don’t like what I said, so you ignore it and me.

As for what kind of fellowship I have… well, that doesn’t really make sense. Being blunt and pointing out a problem in how you seek knowledge is not wrong, nor does it make me a bad person. Remember, one of the cardinal spiritual virtues is correcting those who’s understanding is mistaken. This is not intended to be mean, but rather intended to help a person grow in their knowledge of God.

Anyways, I honestly implore you to stop rejecting things simply because you don’t like the sound of them; otherwise, you’re never going to grow in knowledge or understanding. Also, as Tom has said, your inability to comprehend something doesn’t make it illogical, it simply means that it’s beyond your understanding. Your understanding is very limited, so there are probably lots of things outside of it. The same is true for all of us, to varying degrees.

God Bless.

 

[Bahman]

No, not really. You see, that’s the difference between faith and non-belief.

Peace and all Good!

You can understand that based on the following premises.

1. God is eternal namely has no beginning or end
2. Gods thought is complete meaning that it cannot change his thought, otherwise Gods thought is subject to change hence God
3. Any Gods thought should manifest itself in existence meaning that any existence is eternal
4. The creation by definition is the state of a being coming to existence from nothing hence the being has a beginning
5. (3) and (4) contradict each other hence if we accept hence either (3) is wrong or (4)
6. (3) cannot be wrong because it is deduced from (1) and (2) hence (4) is wrong, or (1) or (2) is wrong

 

[Counterpoint]

Divine Revelation and Catholic Dogma say differently. You have about beat this horse to death. We Catholics and you will just have to agree to disagree. Trying to get you to see our point is a waste of time and you trying to get us to agree with you is a waste of time.

This is a philosophical forum (at least it purports to be one). Therefore, you have to make a rational argument to support your position or to refute an opposing one. Invoking (alleged) divine revelation is not an option.

 

[Bahman]

But, you’re proving my point. You’re doing exactly what I said you always do. You don’t like what I said, so you disregard my post. Also, your first point doesn’t make ant sense… deny healthy discussion unless I accept otherwise…? That’s not even a complete thought…

You call my words poison because they are not pleasing to you… you do realize that this is EXACTLY what I was talking about, right? I mean, you couldn’t have proven my point more effectively if you tried. You don’t like what I said, so you ignore it and me.

As for what kind of fellowship I have… well, that doesn’t really make sense. Being blunt and pointing out a problem in how you seek knowledge is not wrong, nor does it make me a bad person. Remember, one of the cardinal spiritual virtues is correcting those who’s understanding is mistaken. This is not intended to be mean, but rather intended to help a person grow in their knowledge of God.

Anyways, I honestly implore you to stop rejecting things simply because you don’t like the sound of them; otherwise, you’re never going to grow in knowledge or understanding. Also, as Tom has said, your inability to comprehend something doesn’t make it illogical, it simply means that it’s beyond your understanding. Your understanding is very limited, so there are probably lots of things outside of it. The same is true for all of us, to varying degrees.

God Bless.

So are you going to discuss with me more please?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You can understand that based on the following premises.

1. God is eternal namely has no beginning or end
2. Gods thought is complete meaning that it cannot change his thought, otherwise Gods thought is subject to change hence God
3. Any Gods thought should manifest itself in existence meaning that any existence is eternal
4. The creation by definition is the state of a being coming to existence from nothing hence the being has a beginning
5. (3) and (4) contradict each other hence if we accept hence either (3) is wrong or (4)
6. (3) cannot be wrong because it is deduced from (1) and (2) hence (4) is wrong, or (1) or (2) is wrong

You’re logic breaks down at #3. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to think that God’s logic -has- to manifest itself as existence. You’re pulling that out of nowhere, there’s no demonstrable reason for it to be true at all…

 

[Tom_Baum]

But know that earth was not created, in another word it was formed. Either way around the earth has a beginning, one is natural which plausible, and another one is eternal which is not plausible since we know it. Do you want to know how it should be eternal otherwise?

Formed from what, do you know?

Was the “what” always there?

If the “what” was always there, in your opinion, how do you know?

If the “what” wasn’t always there, in your opinion, than where did the “what” come from?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So are you going to discuss with me more please?

This is, once again, going to sound mean, but give me one good reason to? I’ve tried discussing with you before on these threads and, save for this one instance, you’ve completely ignored what I’ve written. You do the same thing to everyone when they present good points, you either misconstrue what they write, or ignore their posts entirely. Simply put, there’s nothing to be gained from discussing with you until you’re actually willing to listen to what other people say. If this thread is any indication, that is not true yet.

If you ever grow up and decide to engage in actual discussion, I and many others would -gladly- engage in endless discussion with you.

 

[Bahman]

You’re logic breaks down at #3. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to think that God’s logic -has- to manifest itself as existence. You’re pulling that out of nowhere, there’s no demonstrable reason for it to be true at all… Seriously, stop trying to be a philosopher.

No, wait, I won’t let you go. My point doesn’t break at (3). (3) cannot be wrong because of a strong reason.

1. Assume that one and only one being is not eternal namely has a beginning
2. This means that the existence of the being imposes a change in Gods thought since it has a beginning

Am so unclear?