What came first?

[untermensche]

Sure. It is impossible for nothing to exist before something.

But it is entirely possible that something completely different than what can be observed in some way existed before what can be observed in some way and caused what can be observed in some way to exist.

And it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite.

Only one logical conclusion.

All that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

 

[Juma]

Sure. It is impossible for nothing to exist before something.

But it is entirely possible that something completely different than what can be observed in some way existed before what can be observed in some way and caused what can be observed in some way to exist.

And it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite.

Only one logical conclusion.

All that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

Then present that logical conclusion or fuck off.

 

[untermensche]

Sure. It is impossible for nothing to exist before something.

But it is entirely possible that something completely different than what can be observed in some way existed before what can be observed in some way and caused what can be observed in some way to exist.

And it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite.

Only one logical conclusion.

All that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

Then present that logical conclusion or fuck off.

I just did.

Can you not read English?

Do ideas have to be wrapped in a certain way before you can comprehend them?

 

[untermensche]

Since it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite and since it is reasonable to assume that something different than all that can be observed in some way could be the cause of of all that can be observed in some way it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that all that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

It is also reasonable to conclude that nothing can be known about that beginning since it involves something beyond that which can be observed in some way. It is beyond any observation in other words.

Ultimately we are stuck with knowing all that can be observed in some way had a beginning and nothing else.

We do not know the cause and will never know. It is impossible to know.

We have our little playpen and are stuck in it. Our condition at birth us who arose from the dirt.

 

[fromderinside]

Blindness to logic is no excuse for that bit.

 

[untermensche]

Blindness to logic is no excuse for that bit.

It is your blindness.

And complete inability to say anything reasonable about it.

All that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

Move on.

 

[Elixir]

Since it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite and since it is reasonable to assume that something different than all that can be observed in some way could be the cause of of all that can be observed in some way it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that all that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

It is also reasonable to conclude that nothing can be known about that beginning since it involves something beyond that which can be observed in some way. It is beyond any observation in other words.

Ultimately we are stuck with knowing all that can be observed in some way had a beginning and nothing else. There is nothing about the current observable state that dictates that there was once a state that did not arise from a prior state, aka a "beginning".

We do not know the cause and will never know. It is impossible to know.

We have our little playpen and are stuck in it. Our condition at birth us who arose from the dirt.

All events and currents states arise from prior states. Given diligent enough examination, prior states can be deduced from current states. To call "beginnings" inscrutable refers only to the limits of our ability to surmise prior states that could have given rise to states that exist or are known to have existed. There is nothing about the current observable state that dictates that there must have been a state that did not arise from a prior state, aka a "beginning".

 

[untermensche]

Since it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite and since it is reasonable to assume that something different than all that can be observed in some way could be the cause of of all that can be observed in some way it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that all that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

It is also reasonable to conclude that nothing can be known about that beginning since it involves something beyond that which can be observed in some way. It is beyond any observation in other words.

Ultimately we are stuck with knowing all that can be observed in some way had a beginning and nothing else. There is nothing about the current observable state that dictates that there was once a state that did not arise from a prior state, aka a "beginning".

We do not know the cause and will never know. It is impossible to know.

We have our little playpen and are stuck in it. Our condition at birth us who arose from the dirt.

All events and currents states arise from prior states...

Clearly not true.

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning and that beginning must be unlike all that can be observed in some way.

What is your evidence that ALL arose from prior states consisting of the same kind of thing as all that can be observed in some way?

 

[Elixir]

Since it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite and since it is reasonable to assume that something different than all that can be observed in some way could be the cause of of all that can be observed in some way it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that all that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

It is also reasonable to conclude that nothing can be known about that beginning since it involves something beyond that which can be observed in some way. It is beyond any observation in other words.

Ultimately we are stuck with knowing all that can be observed in some way had a beginning and nothing else. There is nothing about the current observable state that dictates that there was once a state that did not arise from a prior state, aka a "beginning".

We do not know the cause and will never know. It is impossible to know.

We have our little playpen and are stuck in it. Our condition at birth us who arose from the dirt.

All events and currents states arise from prior states...

Clearly not true.

Ask any physicist if you don't believe me. I don't take your word over that of the entire scientific community. Even quantum phenomena for which prior causative states are unknown, can sometimes be shown to have causative prior states at their roots.

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning...

Because you SAY SO? Sorry... that's called assuming your conclusion. Not good enough. Your "beginnings" examples are arbitrary cutoffs from prior states, not actually divorced from them.

 

[untermensche]

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning...

Because you SAY SO? Sorry... that's called assuming your conclusion. Not good enough. Your "beginnings" examples are arbitrary cutoffs from prior states, not actually divorced from them.

Logic says so.

To reach any moment in time requires that a finite amount of time passes first.

An infinite amount of time will never pass. It cannot have passed before any moment in time.

Therefore all that can be observed in some way had a beginning at some finite amount of time in the past.

 

[beero1000]

 

[OLDMAN]

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning...

Because you SAY SO? Sorry... that's called assuming your conclusion. Not good enough. Your "beginnings" examples are arbitrary cutoffs from prior states, not actually divorced from them.

Logic says so.

To reach any moment in time requires that a finite amount of time passes first.

An infinite amount of time will never pass. It cannot have passed before any moment in time.

Therefore all that can be observed in some way had a beginning at some finite amount of time in the past.

I'm not sure time is necessary, since it only appears to exist in the now, and only as a tool we use to measure change (or see events). Can things not happen without the construct of time? If not, then time could not come into existence.

 

[bilby]

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning...

Because you SAY SO? Sorry... that's called assuming your conclusion. Not good enough. Your "beginnings" examples are arbitrary cutoffs from prior states, not actually divorced from them.

Logic says so.

To reach any moment in time requires that a finite amount of time passes first.

An infinite amount of time will never pass. It cannot have passed before any moment in time.

Therefore all that can be observed in some way had a beginning at some finite amount of time in the past.

I don't have to refute this, because you cannot have made the argument.

The number of times you have posted this nonsense is a finite integer.

To reach any finite integer, you must count an infinite number of smaller integers.

You cannot have counted an infinite number of integers.

Therefore you cannot have made this argument a finite number of times, so it was never made and requires no rebuttal.

Anyway, you are not here to make the argument.

To reach any point in space requires you to travel an infinite distance first.

You cannot travel an infinite distance, Therefore you are not here.

 

[Kharakov]

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning and that beginning must be unlike all that can be observed in some way.

For someone who argues against the "artificiality" of mathematics, using an artificial concept like "beginning" in an eternal continuum is pretty much.. well, it's a good example of your "logic".

 

[untermensche]

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning and that beginning must be unlike all that can be observed in some way.

For someone who argues against the "artificiality" of mathematics, using an artificial concept like "beginning" in an eternal continuum is pretty much.. well, it's a good example of your "logic".

What do you want?

You want me to resort to this imaginary and absurd thing called "no beginning"?

It is not a concept that is real or definable. It was invented whole by theologians.

It is absolute nonsense.

And it seems it is all you can offer.

 

[Kharakov]

When did no beginning start?

 

[untermensche]

When did no beginning start?

There is no such thing. The concept makes absolutely no sense.

Anything can be negated.

To begin is something we have all seen. We all have a beginning. None if us have been here forever.

"No beginning" is an irrational negation of something that exists, nothing more.

 

[Kharakov]

Dude, whatever. We are caused. The things that cause us to be what we are are either caused or uncaused. That which is uncaused has been around forever, although it reacts to that which it has caused, so is 2ndarily caused.

Wow... 2ndarily doesn't spell check.

 

[fromderinside]

When did no beginning start?

There is no such thing. The concept makes absolutely no sense.

Logically, if there beginning is possible then no beginning is logically possible. He said mixing threads. Perhaps to confuse. Perhaps to make a point of logic.

 

[untermensche]

Dude, whatever. We are caused. The things that cause us to be what we are are either caused or uncaused. That which is uncaused has been around forever, although it reacts to that which it has caused, so is 2ndarily caused.

Wow... 2ndarily doesn't spell check.

Everything you can point to was caused.

The idea of existing without a cause is childish nonsense.

Not an answer to anything.