Self Proving

[Thief]

moving back through the course of evolution....
someone mutated

that would be the first man
the new form took hold and mutliplied
Man as a species

THEN someone was first to walk with God

 

[Thief]

We can certainly deny that the same person had to be every "first" that you attribute to God.

someone less than God.....was first?

 

[Jumi]

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

eg....Someone had to be First

Not actual proof. Kind of thinking there has to be a smallest positive number, I think 0.00000001 will do. No wait, 0.000000000001 is smaller... and the list goes on.

 

[`mud]

And they both walked on the rocks !

 

[shunyadragon]

I think ...therefore ....I AM!

and Someone had to be First.

An assertion based on religious belief

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

Science would have you believe nothing of the sort. The hypothesis of a singularity is only one of a number of possibilities of origins of our universe before the observable planc time. Our universe may be cyclic, part of a multiverse, or one of many Black Hole universes.

then decide...substance first or Spirit

if substance first then science has errored.

Only assertions here based on religious belief.

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

So what?!?!?!

substance is not 'self' movtivated.

Probably not, but likely motivated(?) by Natural LAw.

Spirit first

Only assertions here based on religious belief. No statements are self proving. Brief assertions in one liners is not a coherent argument.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

nothing but denial in the form of questions

No answers, just denial in terms of one liners as assertons.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Pudding]

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

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?

What does "self-proving" precisely mean?
What is the precise requirement to qualify a statement to be self-proving?
What is the precise difference between a self-proving statement and a non-self-proving statement?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Excuse me but what about my post? I didnt know this was set up to debate things like ultimate truth and justice.

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

The galaxies and space itself appears to be expanding in all directions, or so I am told. I am not sure why everyone thinks there is a center, but backtracking it looks like space was once very tight and some billions of years ago. If it starts from a single point or from a giant blob our problems are the same -- entropy and boredom.

 

[Audie]

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

eg....Someone had to be First

anyone care to demonstrate a nay saying?

Oh you are just giving us news of the tautological

 

[Audie]

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

Like there just had to be someone who was first
to speak French, right?

 

[Quintessence]

nothing but denial in the form of questions

Seriously? That's the best you could respond with? Claim that asking questions that cast light on the possible fallaciousness of your assumptions is "nothing but denial?" Seriously thief?

Are you here to preach or discuss something and address possible objections to your perspective?

 

[Thief]

An assertion based on religious belief

nay.....I have no religion

 

[Thief]

Seriously? That's the best you could respond with? Claim that asking questions that cast light on the possible fallaciousness of your assumptions is "nothing but denial?" Seriously thief?

Are you here to preach or discuss something and address possible objections to your perspective?

more questions

make a statement

 

[Thief]

I think....therefore...I am

self proving

and Someone had to be first to do so

 

[Quintessence]

more questions

make a statement

Why? Are you incapable of responding to questions? Fine, I'll play your little game. Here's the exact same thing I wrote in the form of questions reframed as statements:

You believe someone had to be first.

There could have been several someones who were first simultaneously.

There could have been no one. The first could be so amorphous and abstract it couldn't rightly be called a "someone" with any meaningful identity.

Time could be cyclical rather than linear, meaning there is no first or last of anything.

Time might not exist at all, or is not relevant.

Assuming there was a first, being first does not matter. Numerical order does not matter.
​

Can you actually address any of this now? Or am I going to have to jump through some other meaningless hoop for you to actually address the flaws in your argument (or lack of argument, really)?

 

[Thief]

Why? Are you incapable of responding to questions? Fine,, I'll play your little game. Here's the exact same thing I wrote in the form of questions reframed as statements:

You believe someone had to be first.

There could have been several someones who were first simultaneously.

There could have been no one. The first could be so amorphous and abstract it couldn't rightly be called a "someone" with any meaningful identity.

Time could be cyclical rather than linear, meaning there is no first or last of anything.

Time might not exist at all, or is not relevant.

Assuming there was a first, being first does not matter. Numerical order does not matter.
​

Can you actually address any of this now?

could have.....is not the target

and true....time does not exist
I always thought as much to be self proving

 

[Quintessence]

could have.....is not the target

Okay, whatever. Then remove the "could have" from all of those sentences:

You believe someone had to be first.

There are several someones who were first simultaneously.

There is no one. The first is so amorphous and abstract it couldn't rightly be called a "someone" with any meaningful identity.

Time is cyclical rather than linear, meaning there is no first or last of anything.

Time does not exist at all, or is not relevant.

Assuming there was a first, being first does not matter. Numerical order does not matter.​

Will you address the objections to your argument now? No, wait... don't tell me... here's another hoop for you to jump through....

 

[shunyadragon]

nay.....I have no religion

You have beliefs, and made assertions of 'Self-proving' based on nothing but statements of faith.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Excuse me but what about my post? I didnt know this was set up to debate things like ultimate truth and justice.
The galaxies and space itself appears to be expanding in all directions, or so I am told. I am not sure why everyone thinks there is a center, but backtracking it looks like space was once very tight and some billions of years ago. If it starts from a single point or from a giant blob our problems are the same -- entropy and boredom.

Entropy is not a problem, but for those trying to watch the universe expand or grass grow boredom would be a problem.

 

[Thief]

and I thought this topic would be brief and short lived

Someone had to be First
is an obvious item