Xeno, As all humans experience, we all have parents who were or are the cause of our existence. I believe your claim that "I had no beginning" is absurd. I ask all of the members here to express their thoughts if you agree with Xeno on this claim--however, illogical it may be.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : No, I simply said I had no beginning, I did not offer a proof of that. If a person were enlightened they could say they had no beginning, but there is no proof such a one is enlightened either, on top of a proof of having no beginning. With regard to the Universe, there are facts that lead us to believe it had a beginning, but those facts do not penetrate so far as to give us a clue as to how that beginning might have occurred. Arguments in which there are no facts, or in which there are undemonstrated assumptions, cannot be brought to a satisfactory resolution, they cannot prove what they intend to prove. '...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.' —David Hume The Reverse Ontological Argument It is possible that God does not exist. If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist in some possible worlds. If God doesn't exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in all possible worlds. If God doesn't exist in all possible worlds then God doesn't exist in the actual world. If God doesn't exist in the actual world then God does not exist. Another version of the argument P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist. P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds. P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds. P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists. ============== ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Salyavin, Yes, I've tried to make the argument using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If you were paying attention a few days ago, Xeno tried to prove in his argument that he had no beginning. I then realized that this line of reasoning was absurd. So, I bowed out from further discussion. It appears that Xeno believed his rationale was strong and logical. But apparently you think that his position was absurd as well. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Richard, That's exactly right. Erm, that statement agrees with me. It's you who has to prove your god, you who has made the metaphysical assumption. Therefore, the atheist's position is very weak and absurd. You can see this weakness when they try to make arguments against the Kalam Cosmological Argument. IMO, their arguments become absurd and nonsensical. The KCA is a crock, how can there be an uncaused creator god when you've already decided the reason he has to exist is because things can't exist without a cause? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 11/4/2014 12:00 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The federal government recognizes secular humanism as a religion. That means atheists have faith in the nonexistence of a god. But can they prove that God is nonexistent? > It's almost impossible to prove a negative, even if your include in your argument the Law of the Excluded Middle. By the mere mention of a entity in their argument they have already postulated a metaphysical assumption. Without definitions, the argument is circular ending with a reductio ad absurdum. Any statement, when taken to extremes, will be found to be self-contradictory. " Zeno has argued that if as the pluralists say things are many, then they will be both like and unlike; but this is an impossible situation, for unlike things cannot be like, nor like things unlike." Plato's Parmenides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html It is possible that God does not exist. If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist in some possible worlds. If God doesn't exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in all possible worlds. If God doesn't exist in all possible worlds then God doesn't exist in the actual world. If God doesn't exist in the actual world the God does not exist. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Salyavin, Yes, I've tried to make the argument using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If you were paying attention a few days ago, Xeno tried to prove in his argument that he had no beginning. I then realized that this line of reasoning was absurd. So, I bowed out from further discussion. It appears that Xeno believed his rationale was strong and logical. But apparently you think that his position was absurd as well. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Richard, That's exactly right. Erm, that statement agrees with me. It's you who has to prove your god, you who has made the metaphysical assumption. Therefore, the atheist's position is very weak and absurd. You can see this weakness when they try to make arguments against the Kalam Cosmological Argument. IMO, their arguments become absurd and nonsensical. The KCA is a crock, how can there be an uncaused creator god when you've already decided the reason he has to exist is because things can't exist without a cause? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 11/4/2014 12:00 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The federal government recognizes secular humanism as a religion. That means atheists have faith in the nonexistence of a god. But can they prove that God is nonexistent? > It's almost impossible to prove a negative, even if your include in your argument the Law of the Excluded Middle. By the mere mention of a entity in their argument they have already postulated a metaphysical assumption. Without definitions, the argument is circular ending with a reductio ad absurdum. Any statement, when taken to extremes, will be found to be self-contradictory. " Zeno has argued that if as the pluralists say things are many, then they will be both like and unlike; but this is an impossible situation, for unlike things cannot be like, nor like things unlike." Plato's Parmenides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html
