• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The most important question of all

Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
siti said:
Prove that there is no infinite regression then. And I am not trolling - this is a debate forum and you have made a statement that you cannot support with either evidence or logic...there is absolutely no logical or evidential proof that there cannot be an infinite regression - even of persons - that have existed before us...if you can prove that there cannot be an infinite regression then I will accept that something had to be first. Even then you still fall well short of your insistence that someone had to be first. But like I said, if there can be an infinite regression, then there is no logical obstacle to an infinite regression of 'persons' either.
Click to expand...
there was a begining
a starting point

substance is not 'self' motivating
an object will remain at rest until moved

Spirit first ....as creator
 
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
Thief said:
there was a begining
a starting point

substance is not 'self' motivating
an object will remain at rest until moved

Spirit first ....as creator
Click to expand...
But we don't know that there was a beginning, we don't know that substance is not self-motivating and we don't know of any objects that are at rest except in a relativistic frame of reference - in an absolute frame of reference the entire universe is in continual motion and always has been - for all we know this may have been so eternally. As far as I can see there almost certainly are no "points" at all let alone "starting points" there are only "intervals" with the most arbitrarily small "intervals" defined as (if they were) "points" in space and "moments" in time.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
siti said:
But we don't know that there was a beginning, we don't know that substance is not self-motivating and we don't know of any objects that are at rest except in a relativistic frame of reference - in an absolute frame of reference the entire universe is in continual motion and always has been - for all we know this may have been so eternally. As far as I can see there almost certainly are no "points" at all let alone "starting points" there are only "intervals" with the most arbitrarily small "intervals" defined as (if they were) "points" in space and "moments" in time.
Click to expand...
expansion indicates a starting point

and time does not exist as force or substance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top