• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Self Proving

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
If it never happened then no one had to be first. I had to sort of go around the question though.

How about these: you cannot reverse an irreversible process, and no means no.
 

DPMartin

Member
I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?


if i understand you correctly, there are those who believe in evolution to satisfy their need for proof of origin.

though your OP s a nice try. and stands to reason, it would seem by observation alone the facts are that life comes from life.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
mmmmm.......more like.....

Someone had to be First .....as a statement that cannot be denied
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?
Not sure what you mean by a nay saying, but a self-disproving example could be that famous old chestnut: "All Cretans are liars," said the Cretan.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Why do you believe someone had to be first?

Why couldn't there have been several someones who were first simultaneously?
Why can't there be no one? What if the "first" was so amorphous and abstract it couldn't rightly be called a "someone" with any meaningful identity?
What if time is cyclical rather than linear, meaning there is no first or last of anything?
What if time doesn't really exist at all, or was not relevant?

And more importantly - assuming there was a first, why would being first matter? Why does numerical order matter at all?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?

Your statement is vague. No statements are self proving. This is too circular to be real.

If you are referring to the first humans, homo sapiens, (someone?) than yes, there was a first population (individual?) in the population that would be the first human(s). The modern view of evolution is that species evolve as population and not necessarily the first individual (Someone?).

If you are proposing that the nature of our physical existence must have a beginning with someone(?) than no there does not necessarily need a first someone.

.
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?

Nobody had to be first, as in a race that was started but nobody finished. Maybe they all quit or died.

Since we define the conditions of firstness, being first is a pretty arbitrary attribute to assign to anyone or anything.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I do believe ....
some statements are self proving

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?
So, YOU believe that there are self-proving statements? So What? Why should anyone care or challenge you on your belief?

You haven't demonstrated that there are any statements that are self-proving. Especially that any meaningful statements are self-proving; statements such as "All bachelors are male" is true by definition, and so not particularly meaningful.

Your statement of "Someone had to be first" is not obviously self-proving.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
seems the notion of counting back to the beginning is elusive

Need clarification. No one reasonably and logical counts backward to the beginning. As far as science is concerned there is no known absolute beginning to count back to.

You need to define an absolute beginning that may be objectively understood and supported by objective evidence.

Still waiting . . .
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Why do you believe someone had to be first?

Why couldn't there have been several someones who were first simultaneously?
Why can't there be no one? What if the "first" was so amorphous and abstract it couldn't rightly be called a "someone" with any meaningful identity?
What if time is cyclical rather than linear, meaning there is no first or last of anything?
What if time doesn't really exist at all, or was not relevant?

And more importantly - assuming there was a first, why would being first matter? Why does numerical order matter at all?
nothing but denial in the form of questions
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I think ...therefore ....I AM!

and Someone had to be First

science would have you believe....all of substance had one starting point
a primordial singularity
expansion indicates a starting point

then decide...substance first or Spirit

if substance first then science has errored

an object at rest will remain at rest.....but the universe is moving


substance is not 'self' movtivated

Spirit first
 
Top