1. 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!

Featured Self Proving

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Thief, Sep 12, 2018.

  1. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    37,585
    Ratings:
    +2,709
    I do believe ....
    some statements are self proving

    eg....Someone had to be First

    anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?
     
  2. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity simple man
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    21,737
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    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.
     
  3. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity simple man
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    21,737
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    There is no time like the present.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. DPMartin

    DPMartin Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2018
    Messages:
    126
    Ratings:
    +16

    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.
     
  5. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    37,585
    Ratings:
    +2,709
    mmmmm.......more like.....

    Someone had to be First .....as a statement that cannot be denied
     
  6. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    7,797
    Ratings:
    +7,092
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Nah. Seems pretty deniable to me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    2,376
    Ratings:
    +1,621
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    But surely these examples are mere tautologies, aren't they?
     
  8. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    2,376
    Ratings:
    +1,621
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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.
     
  9. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    37,585
    Ratings:
    +2,709
    seems the notion of counting back to the beginning is elusive
     
  10. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    51,918
    Ratings:
    +11,552
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    We can certainly deny that the same person had to be every "first" that you attribute to God.
     
  11. Quintessence

    Quintessence Tale Weaver
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,813
    Ratings:
    +11,397
    Religion:
    Druidry
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  12. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,507
    Ratings:
    +3,254
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    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.

    .
     
    #12 shunyadragon, Sep 12, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2018
  13. 'mud

    'mud ~~ Life is Stuff ~~
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    4,447
    Ratings:
    +1,680
    Religion:
    ~~ LIFE ~~
    Who was the first `god` ?
     
  14. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,140
    Ratings:
    +3,457
    Religion:
    Antipasto
    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.
     
  15. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    14,365
    Ratings:
    +4,333
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    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.
     
  16. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,507
    Ratings:
    +3,254
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    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 . . .
     
  17. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Baby Angels

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    22,983
    Ratings:
    +7,508
    Religion:
    Artist and Healer
    No. Everything revolves in a circle.
     
  18. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,507
    Ratings:
    +3,254
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Possibly, but again assertion, need evidence . . . ?
     
  19. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    37,585
    Ratings:
    +2,709
    nothing but denial in the form of questions
     
  20. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    37,585
    Ratings:
    +2,709
    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
     
Loading...