The religion of "no beginning".

[Kharakov]

You need to show a reasonable scenario in which beginnings can exist.

If something does not exist at one point in time and then later it does exist then it clearly had a beginning.

It was a joke... like you, but funnier.

 

[untermensche]

The question is: Which transformation is the beginning of the life of a distinct organism?

That would be ejaculation...

You don't seem to comprehend how reproduction works.

Ejaculation is meaningless without fertilization.

Fertilization is the essential first event for a new life to BEGIN.

We are not talking about what events are needed for a new life to begin. We are talking about when it begins. No new life begins at ejaculation.

If a new life begins at ejaculation which new life begins? Does every ejaculation lead to a new life?

- - - Updated - - -

You need to show a reasonable scenario in which beginnings can exist.

If something does not exist at one point in time and then later it does exist then it clearly had a beginning.

It was a joke... like you, but funnier.

That's a joke?

Where exactly is the humor?

 

[bilby]

You don't seem to comprehend how reproduction works.

Ejaculation is meaningless without fertilization.

And fertilisation is impossible without ejaculation.

Fertilization is the essential first event for a new life to BEGIN.

It's hardly the FIRST event; I can think of at least one essential prior event. But that's because I comprehend how reproduction works.

We are not talking about what events are needed for a new life to begin. We are talking about when it begins. No new life begins at ejaculation.

Oh, you think that spermatogenesis should be the beginning? You might be right about that. New life begins when a sperm cell is generated in the father's testes. Or should we choose the much earlier event, the formation of the oocyte in the infant girl who will one day be the mother? I think we should.

You know, this is very tricky. It's almost as if the very idea of a 'beginning' was arbitrary and meaningless.

If a new life begins at ejaculation which new life begins? Does every ejaculation lead to a new life?

Are you labouring under the misapprehension that every fertilisation leads to new life?

Every step, from before ejaculation, at least up until to birth, is necessary; None is sufficient.

Your arbitrary choice is no better than any other arbitrary choice.

You should probably read your posts carefully before hitting the 'Post reply' button, and delete those that contain obviously stupid claims such as those you make above; It will lower your post count considerably, but the increase in quality would be more than worthwhile.

 

[untermensche]

We are not talking about what events are needed for a new life to begin. We are talking about when it begins. No new life begins at ejaculation.

Oh, you think that spermatogenesis should be the beginning? You might be right about that. New life begins when a sperm cell is generated in the father's testes. Or should we choose the much earlier event, the formation of the oocyte in the infant girl who will one day be the mother? I think we should.

You know, this is very tricky. It's almost as if the very idea of a 'beginning' was arbitrary and meaningless.

A new life is something that has the potential to grow into an organism.

A sperm cell is living but it is not the start of a new life.

Nothing will grow from it.

I assure you.

Are you labouring under the misapprehension that every fertilisation leads to new life?

I'm not laboring, but it is true.

Every fertilization is the beginning of a new life.

How long that life lives varies.

Every step, from before ejaculation, at least up until to birth, is necessary; None is sufficient.

Totally irrelevant since we are not talking about the necessary steps but are talking about the time when a new life begins.

You are very lost.

 

[bilby]

A new life is something that has the potential to grow into an organism.

A sperm cell is living but it is not the start of a new life.

Nothing will grow from it.

I assure you.

Are you labouring under the misapprehension that every fertilisation leads to new life?

I'm not laboring, but it is true.

Every fertilization is the beginning of a new life.

How long that life lives varies.

Every step, from before ejaculation, at least up until to birth, is necessary; None is sufficient.

Totally irrelevant since we are not talking about the necessary steps but are talking about the time when a new life begins.

You are very lost.

You stick to your arbitrary dogma. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

The rest of us will continue to care more about reality than dogma, and will get things done.

If you ever feel like joining in, you will be welcome.

 

[Kharakov]

You need to show a reasonable scenario in which beginnings can exist.

If something does not exist at one point in time and then later it does exist then it clearly had a beginning.

It was a joke... like you, but funnier.

That's a joke? Where exactly is the humor?

Whooshing by.

 

[untermensche]

If something does not exist at one point in time and then later it does exist then it clearly had a beginning.

It was a joke... like you, but funnier.

That's a joke? Where exactly is the humor?

Whooshing by.

So you claim.

- - - Updated - - -

A new life is something that has the potential to grow into an organism.

A sperm cell is living but it is not the start of a new life.

Nothing will grow from it.

I assure you.



I'm not laboring, but it is true.

Every fertilization is the beginning of a new life.

How long that life lives varies.



Totally irrelevant since we are not talking about the necessary steps but are talking about the time when a new life begins.

You are very lost.

You stick to your arbitrary dogma. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

The rest of us will continue to care more about reality than dogma, and will get things done.

If you ever feel like joining in, you will be welcome.

It is biology, not my dogma.

When an egg and a sperm unite a new organism begins.

Not before.

 

[Kharakov]

It was a joke... like you, but funnier.

That's a joke? Where exactly is the humor?

Whooshing by.

So you claim.

Do you think you can make me laugh again?

 

[bilby]

It was a joke... like you, but funnier.

That's a joke? Where exactly is the humor?

Whooshing by.

So you claim.

- - - Updated - - -

A new life is something that has the potential to grow into an organism.

A sperm cell is living but it is not the start of a new life.

Nothing will grow from it.

I assure you.



I'm not laboring, but it is true.

Every fertilization is the beginning of a new life.

How long that life lives varies.



Totally irrelevant since we are not talking about the necessary steps but are talking about the time when a new life begins.

You are very lost.

You stick to your arbitrary dogma. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

The rest of us will continue to care more about reality than dogma, and will get things done.

If you ever feel like joining in, you will be welcome.

It is biology, not my dogma.

When an egg and a sperm unite a new organism begins.

Not before.

So you keep asserting, in the face of the evidence that 'beginning' is an arbitrary label you apply wherever you feel like putting it.

It's almost as though you think that your arbitrary categories are somehow a description of the underlying reality.

You're not that stupid though, surely?

 

[4321lynx]

That's a joke? Where exactly is the humor?

Whooshing by.

So you claim.

- - - Updated - - -

A new life is something that has the potential to grow into an organism.

A sperm cell is living but it is not the start of a new life.

Nothing will grow from it.

I assure you.



I'm not laboring, but it is true.

Every fertilization is the beginning of a new life.

How long that life lives varies.



Totally irrelevant since we are not talking about the necessary steps but are talking about the time when a new life begins.

You are very lost.

You stick to your arbitrary dogma. I'm sure it makes you feel better.

The rest of us will continue to care more about reality than dogma, and will get things done.

If you ever feel like joining in, you will be welcome.

It is biology, not my dogma.

When an egg and a sperm unite a new organism begins.

Not before.

So you keep asserting, in the face of the evidence that 'beginning' is an arbitrary label you apply wherever you feel like putting it.

It's almost as though you think that your arbitrary categories are somehow a description of the underlying reality.

You're not that stupid though, surely?

He's choosing a logical point in life where we can say that life begins with some justification. Unless, as I said or implied here before, we continue back to the Big Bang which was a Singularity, which means a happenning we can't explain, caused/uncaused by we don't know what,, why, and where or in what Nowhere, once or more times or, say, -1 times, or -n times, even if that seems impossible to us, humans at the present time in our developement.

None of this proves that there was never, or n times, or -n times never, that there was/wasn't a beginning. It does indicate the utter futility of a Metaphysics that cannot admit the above facts and its own limitations.

 

[untermensche]

That's a joke? Where exactly is the humor?

Whooshing by.

So you claim.

Do you think you can make me laugh again?

I don't care.

 

[untermensche]

So you keep asserting, in the face of the evidence that 'beginning' is an arbitrary label you apply wherever you feel like putting it.

It's almost as though you think that your arbitrary categories are somehow a description of the underlying reality.

You're not that stupid though, surely?

You've presented no evidence to support your position. You have made one bad argument after another.

And you confuse that with evidence.

Your position is laughable.

You are claiming a unique individual organism can exist without a beginning to it's existence.

A position that displays an incredible ignorance of basic biology and rational thought.

Every organism had a unique and specific beginning to it's existence. That is life. A series of new beginnings.

We see beginnings everywhere.

This religious notion of "no beginning" is never seen. It cannot be seen. It is impossible to see it and therefore irrational to claim it could exist.

 

[untermensche]

He's choosing a logical point in life where we can say that life begins with some justification. Unless, as I said or implied here before, we continue back to the Big Bang which was a Singularity, which means a happenning we can't explain, caused/uncaused by we don't know what,, why, and where or in what Nowhere, once or more times or, say, -1 times, or -n times, even if that seems impossible to us, humans at the present time in our developement.

None of this proves that there was never, or n times, or -n times never, that there was/wasn't a beginning. It does indicate the utter futility of a Metaphysics that cannot admit the above facts and its own limitations.

It can only be proven that the idea of "no beginning" is an irrational religious idea.

As far as proving all that can be observed had a beginning that flows from the impossibility of an infinite past.

The impossibility of completing an infinite series.

As far as the beginning to everything that exists, that would be something we could not comprehend in any way. It would have to involve an existence unlike the one we can observe in some way. It would be unknowable.

We are caught in a specific kind of existence and unable to escape it in any way, except by inventing imaginary concepts, like "no beginning".

 

[Kharakov]

Whooshing by.

So you claim.

Do you think you can make me laugh again?

I don't care.

 

[untermensche]

So you claim.

Do you think you can make me laugh again?

I don't care.

I will not be able to comprehend you and you will not be able to comprehend me.

But we can comprehend ideas to a degree.

And the idea that infinity can exist in reality is a bad idea.

Infinity is as real as the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kharakov]

Do you think you can make me laugh again?

I don't care.

I will not be able to comprehend you and you will not be able to comprehend me.


But we can comprehend ideas to a degree.

And the idea that infinity can exist in reality is a bad idea.

Holey fuck, are you DJT?

Infinity is as real as the Holy Spirit.

The Holey Spear It is a vagina pun made by Cat holics.... who are addicted to kitties.

 

[untermensche]

That's not amusing at all.

The religion of infinity believers is amusing however.

Infinity is not a concept you can apply to reality in any way.

It is only something that exists conceptually in a conceptual setting. And it only exists partially there. It is never expressed. It cannot be expressed. It's nature is that it cannot be expressed.

The only place it exists or could exist is in the human mind.

To claim otherwise is to be a blind religious nut.

As blind as any Jehovah Witness knocking on doors.

To claim we could have traversed an infinite past, that it is possible that something "always existed" is a primitive ignorance that like many ignorances is possible to get past.

 

[DBT]

It seems to have slipped my mind....are you proposing a First Cause for the Universe?

Do you see a discussion of causes in any of this?

This is about the religious belief called "no beginning".

What do you have to say about it?

My question was; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

My question again; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

 

[untermensche]

My question was; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

My question again; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

All that could be said about that topic is a "first cause" would have to arise from something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way.

All that can be observed in some way could not have caused itself.

And it could not have existed forever.

The past could not have been infinite. You cannot traverse an infinite series.

 

[DBT]

My question was; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

My question again; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

All that could be said about that topic is a "first cause" would have to arise from something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way.

All that can be observed in some way could not have caused itself.

And it could not have existed forever.

The past could not have been infinite. You cannot traverse an infinite series.

So, was there a First Cause or was there not a First Cause?