|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2021 21:55:18 GMT
All phenomenon as caused by another phenomenon reduce to a first cause which is uncaused thus resulting in all expressions of being as being free.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 6, 2021 2:51:19 GMT
Nothing is behind the first cause because if another cause is behind it then it is not the first cause. If nothing is behind the first cause then it is uncaused. The supreme cause is uncaused thus acausality is proven.
This uncaused cause is free given it diverges to all possible outcomes through the actualization of said phenomenon...in simpler terms what is possible is actualized with all possibilities being actualized thus free. This uncaused cause, with all phenomenom branching from this cause, is free due to its uncaused nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 6, 2021 8:09:25 GMT
You're assuming that there's a first of anything but to try to find the first of something in order to prove it would be pointless
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 6, 2021 16:05:34 GMT
You're assuming that there's a first of anything but to try to find the first of something in order to prove it would be pointless All cause an effect chains result in a first event. This first event is uncaused as nothing lies behind it given it is the limit of the cause and effect chain. One cannot observe causality behind this first event. However because cause and effect cannot be observed behind this first event cause and effect cannot be observed as an unlimited regress. If cause and effect are observed as an unlimited regress then it is an infinite chain and something must have caused this infinite chain thus resulting in another infinite chain and and another infinite chain and we result in the infinite number of chains becoming a loop given the same thing repeats itself. This loop stands as a singular uncaused entity as it has it's own beginning and end. Nothing lies behind its beginning or end. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 6, 2021 16:16:43 GMT
You're assuming that there's a first of anything but to try to find the first of something in order to prove it would be pointless One can find the first of one event by finding the end of another. This end of one event is the beginning of another. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 7, 2021 17:14:38 GMT
You're assuming that there's a first of anything but to try to find the first of something in order to prove it would be pointless One can find the first of one event by finding the end of another. This end of one event is the beginning of another. No, one can logically assume based off of watching other beginnings and endings that there probably was a beginning to all Beginnings but this is an assumption doesn't go past your nose regardless of how logical it is or is not |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 7, 2021 17:17:19 GMT
You're assuming that there's a first of anything but to try to find the first of something in order to prove it would be pointless All cause an effect chains result in a first event. This first event is uncaused as nothing lies behind it given it is the limit of the cause and effect chain. One cannot observe causality behind this first event. However because cause and effect cannot be observed behind this first event cause and effect cannot be observed as an unlimited regress. If cause and effect are observed as an unlimited regress then it is an infinite chain and something must have caused this infinite chain thus resulting in another infinite chain and and another infinite chain and we result in the infinite number of chains becoming a loop given the same thing repeats itself. This loop stands as a singular uncaused entity as it has it's own beginning and end. Nothing lies behind its beginning or end. If something is a infinite anything then there was nothing before it because it's without measure. I'm sorry your human brain can't understand how something could always be but nevertheless it still is on the table as a possibility that it always was and never had a first cause. you'll have to accept one day the fact that your brain might not be able to grasp the finer mysteries of life. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 16:24:35 GMT
All cause an effect chains result in a first event. This first event is uncaused as nothing lies behind it given it is the limit of the cause and effect chain. One cannot observe causality behind this first event. However because cause and effect cannot be observed behind this first event cause and effect cannot be observed as an unlimited regress. If cause and effect are observed as an unlimited regress then it is an infinite chain and something must have caused this infinite chain thus resulting in another infinite chain and and another infinite chain and we result in the infinite number of chains becoming a loop given the same thing repeats itself. This loop stands as a singular uncaused entity as it has it's own beginning and end. Nothing lies behind its beginning or end. If something is a infinite anything then there was nothing before it because it's without measure. I'm sorry your human brain can't understand how something could always be but nevertheless it still is on the table as a possibility that it always was and never had a first cause. you'll have to accept one day the fact that your brain might not be able to grasp the finer mysteries of life. There is no evidence the universe is infinite given change results in the beginnings and ends of all phenomena. What we have as evidence is beginnings and endings. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 12, 2021 23:08:59 GMT
If something is a infinite anything then there was nothing before it because it's without measure. I'm sorry your human brain can't understand how something could always be but nevertheless it still is on the table as a possibility that it always was and never had a first cause. you'll have to accept one day the fact that your brain might not be able to grasp the finer mysteries of life. There is no evidence the universe is infinite given change results in the beginnings and ends of all phenomena. What we have as evidence is beginnings and endings. We have evidence of beginnings and endings which would imply that the logical thing to think would be that there's always been beginnings and endings. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 0:55:06 GMT
There is no evidence the universe is infinite given change results in the beginnings and ends of all phenomena. What we have as evidence is beginnings and endings. We have evidence of beginnings and endings which would imply that the logical thing to think would be that there's always been beginnings and endings. Thus as a summation of the parts which compose it the universe has a beginning and end. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 13, 2021 5:05:26 GMT
We have evidence of beginnings and endings which would imply that the logical thing to think would be that there's always been beginnings and endings. Thus as a summation of the parts which compose it the universe has a beginning and end. No. we see things within the Universe that have beginnings and ends but not the Universe its self, it appears to be the holder of the things that change but not bound by the phenomena called change kind of like the cup thst holds the water is not the same as the water . |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 17:06:00 GMT
Thus as a summation of the parts which compose it the universe has a beginning and end. No. we see things within the Universe that have beginnings and ends but not the Universe its self, it appears to be the holder of the things that change but not bound by the phenomena called change kind of like the cup thst holds the water is not the same as the water . If the universe is composed of beginnings and endings you must prove that it is infinite. Even science does not state it is infinite. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 13, 2021 19:51:05 GMT
No. we see things within the Universe that have beginnings and ends but not the Universe its self, it appears to be the holder of the things that change but not bound by the phenomena called change kind of like the cup thst holds the water is not the same as the water . If the universe is composed of beginnings and endings you must prove that it is infinite. Even science does not state it is infinite. Science makes guesses nothing more nothing less . they call it the big bang but they don't believe in a literal "boom" wherein everything all of a sudden came into existence Instead the term "big bang" is just a saying for a point in which their scientific mathematical hypothesis can't go any further it's the point where the math stops Is all science has is hypothesis about the Universe and those hypothesis throughout history have changed depending on who comes up with some new and different mathematical hypothesis at a given time. And remember a hypothesis is not a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 13, 2021 20:05:12 GMT
If the universe is composed of beginnings and endings you must prove that it is infinite. Even science does not state it is infinite. Science makes guesses nothing more nothing less . they call it the big bang but they don't believe in a literal "boom" wherein everything all of a sudden came into existence Instead the term "big bang" is just a saying for a point in which their scientific mathematical hypothesis can't go any further it's the point where the math stops Is all science has is hypothesis about the Universe and those hypothesis throughout history have changed depending on who comes up with some new and different mathematical hypothesis at a given time. And remember a hypothesis is not a fact. Yet hypothesis' are educated guesses. The infinite universe is equal to a hypothesis. |
|
