There was a beginning

[bahman]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

[Age]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

[bahman]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

Why?

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

Why?

[Age]

There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

Why?

Because 'you' have written what you in a way that does NOT 'logically' follow. And, what you say and write here can NOT be empirically proven.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

Why?
[/quote]

Because 'you' have written what you in a way that does NOT 'logically' follow. And, what you say and write here can NOT be empirically proven.

[commonsense]

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

I think you meant to say that we are not in heat death (but aren’t we?), therefore we are not in the final state of a closed system.

Since we are not in a closed system, there must be either no beginning or no end or neither.

Proof of B: We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

You should look up the meaning of the word, “therefore”.

[bahman]

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

Why?

Because 'you' have written what you in a way that does NOT 'logically' follow. And, what you say and write here can NOT be empirically proven.

Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

NONE of this logically follows NOR is empirically proven and true, well to me anyway.

Why?

Because 'you' have written what you in a way that does NOT 'logically' follow. And, what you say and write here can NOT be empirically proven.
[/quote]
Of course, it follows. You are free not to accept.

[bahman]

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

I think you meant to say that we are not in heat death (but aren’t we?), therefore we are not in the final state of a closed system.

Since we are not in a closed system, there must be either no beginning or no end or neither.

I think that the whole is closed.

Proof of B: We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

You should look up the meaning of the word, “therefore”.

I know that.

[Age]

Why?

Because 'you' have written what you have in a way that does NOT 'logically' follow. And, what you say and write here can NOT be empirically proven.

Of course, it follows. You are free not to accept.

Are 'you' PURPOSELY being this BLIND, or can 'you', literally, REALLY NOT SEE here?

I did NOT say that 'it' does NOT follow.

I said that 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow. Which is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. That is; ANY 'thing' which is AFTER another 'thing' 'follows' on from that first or prior 'thing'. Therefore, your 'words' follow each other. This can NOT be disputed NOR refuted. But this has absolutely NO bearing at all on whether those words make ANY sense, are true, 'logically' follow on from each other, or not.

Now, even though I emphasized the 'logically' word you STILL MISSED 'it'. Either this was on PURPOSE or NOT. But either way this does NOT take away from the FACT that what you have written, in the way that you have, 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow AT ALL, and, 'it' can NOT be 'empirically' proven, ever.

Therefore 'what you have said and claimed is true', is ONLY an ASSUMPTION, or 'yours', and just an ASSUMPTION ONLY of 'yours', which MEANS that 'it' is NOT some 'thing' that a Truly sane person would 'accept' as being true.

In case you are YET AWARE 'you' have to ACTUALLY PROVE some 'thing' BEFORE I will accepted 'it'.

And, just saying that you have proven some 'thing' does NOT necessarily mean that you HAVE. Is this understood?

[Age]

Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

I think you meant to say that we are not in heat death (but aren’t we?), therefore we are not in the final state of a closed system.

Since we are not in a closed system, there must be either no beginning or no end or neither.

I think that the whole is closed.

Proof of B: We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

You should look up the meaning of the word, “therefore”.

I know that.

Your responses RARELY match what you are actually replying to. Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

What is the word 'that' here referring to, EXACTLY?

Do you know 'that' you should look up the meaning of the word 'therefore'? (Which was ALL that was being suggested to you here, and which your response, to me, closest matches this clarifying question.)

Do you know 'that' you know how to look up the meaning of the word 'therefore'?

Do you know 'that' what you are saying and claiming here is absolutely true?

Do you know 'that' what the word 'therefore' actually means?

If it is this one, then what does the word 'therefore' actually mean, to 'you', EXACTLY?

Your responses, after all, do NOT actually indicate at all that you actually do already know what the word 'therefore' means.

Or, does the word 'that' in your reply refer to something else?

[bahman]

Because 'you' have written what you have in a way that does NOT 'logically' follow. And, what you say and write here can NOT be empirically proven.

Of course, it follows. You are free not to accept.

Are 'you' PURPOSELY being this BLIND, or can 'you', literally, REALLY NOT SEE here?

I did NOT say that 'it' does NOT follow.

I said that 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow. Which is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. That is; ANY 'thing' which is AFTER another 'thing' 'follows' on from that first or prior 'thing'. Therefore, your 'words' follow each other. This can NOT be disputed NOR refuted. But this has absolutely NO bearing at all on whether those words make ANY sense, are true, 'logically' follow on from each other, or not.

Now, even though I emphasized the 'logically' word you STILL MISSED 'it'. Either this was on PURPOSE or NOT. But either way this does NOT take away from the FACT that what you have written, in the way that you have, 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow AT ALL, and, 'it' can NOT be 'empirically' proven, ever.

Therefore 'what you have said and claimed is true', is ONLY an ASSUMPTION, or 'yours', and just an ASSUMPTION ONLY of 'yours', which MEANS that 'it' is NOT some 'thing' that a Truly sane person would 'accept' as being true.

In case you are YET AWARE 'you' have to ACTUALLY PROVE some 'thing' BEFORE I will accepted 'it'.

And, just saying that you have proven some 'thing' does NOT necessarily mean that you HAVE. Is this understood?

Again, you failed to provide an argument against mine. Where is the error in my argument?

[Age]

Of course, it follows. You are free not to accept.

Are 'you' PURPOSELY being this BLIND, or can 'you', literally, REALLY NOT SEE here?

I did NOT say that 'it' does NOT follow.

I said that 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow. Which is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. That is; ANY 'thing' which is AFTER another 'thing' 'follows' on from that first or prior 'thing'. Therefore, your 'words' follow each other. This can NOT be disputed NOR refuted. But this has absolutely NO bearing at all on whether those words make ANY sense, are true, 'logically' follow on from each other, or not.

Now, even though I emphasized the 'logically' word you STILL MISSED 'it'. Either this was on PURPOSE or NOT. But either way this does NOT take away from the FACT that what you have written, in the way that you have, 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow AT ALL, and, 'it' can NOT be 'empirically' proven, ever.

Therefore 'what you have said and claimed is true', is ONLY an ASSUMPTION, or 'yours', and just an ASSUMPTION ONLY of 'yours', which MEANS that 'it' is NOT some 'thing' that a Truly sane person would 'accept' as being true.

In case you are YET AWARE 'you' have to ACTUALLY PROVE some 'thing' BEFORE I will accepted 'it'.

And, just saying that you have proven some 'thing' does NOT necessarily mean that you HAVE. Is this understood?

Again, you failed to provide an argument against mine. Where is the error in my argument?

But there are ABSOLUTELY NO ERRORS AT ALL in YOUR "argument", to 'you', correct?

And, to 'you', there COULD NOT BE ANY errors in YOUR "argument", correct?

This is because, to 'you', YOUR "argument" is irrefutably SOUND and VALID, correct?

[bahman]

Are 'you' PURPOSELY being this BLIND, or can 'you', literally, REALLY NOT SEE here?

I did NOT say that 'it' does NOT follow.

I said that 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow. Which is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. That is; ANY 'thing' which is AFTER another 'thing' 'follows' on from that first or prior 'thing'. Therefore, your 'words' follow each other. This can NOT be disputed NOR refuted. But this has absolutely NO bearing at all on whether those words make ANY sense, are true, 'logically' follow on from each other, or not.

Now, even though I emphasized the 'logically' word you STILL MISSED 'it'. Either this was on PURPOSE or NOT. But either way this does NOT take away from the FACT that what you have written, in the way that you have, 'it' does NOT 'logically' follow AT ALL, and, 'it' can NOT be 'empirically' proven, ever.

Therefore 'what you have said and claimed is true', is ONLY an ASSUMPTION, or 'yours', and just an ASSUMPTION ONLY of 'yours', which MEANS that 'it' is NOT some 'thing' that a Truly sane person would 'accept' as being true.

In case you are YET AWARE 'you' have to ACTUALLY PROVE some 'thing' BEFORE I will accepted 'it'.

And, just saying that you have proven some 'thing' does NOT necessarily mean that you HAVE. Is this understood?

Again, you failed to provide an argument against mine. Where is the error in my argument?

But there are ABSOLUTELY NO ERRORS AT ALL in YOUR "argument", to 'you', correct?

And, to 'you', there COULD NOT BE ANY errors in YOUR "argument", correct?

This is because, to 'you', YOUR "argument" is irrefutably SOUND and VALID, correct?

Yes.

[Age]

Again, you failed to provide an argument against mine. Where is the error in my argument?

But there are ABSOLUTELY NO ERRORS AT ALL in YOUR "argument", to 'you', correct?

And, to 'you', there COULD NOT BE ANY errors in YOUR "argument", correct?

This is because, to 'you', YOUR "argument" is irrefutably SOUND and VALID, correct?

Yes.

Thank you. That is ALL the PROOF needed here.

[bahman]

But there are ABSOLUTELY NO ERRORS AT ALL in YOUR "argument", to 'you', correct?

And, to 'you', there COULD NOT BE ANY errors in YOUR "argument", correct?

This is because, to 'you', YOUR "argument" is irrefutably SOUND and VALID, correct?

Yes.

Thank you. That is ALL the PROOF needed here.

So you agree that my proof is correct? Or it does not matter to you anymore.

[AlexW]

Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.

How does this follow? I don't see your point...
And how would you know that a a few billion years from now there wouldn't be a "heat death" occurring?

There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.

How can something that is "eternal" have a beginning?
As I see it, the term "eternal X" means that X has no end - and as such it also means: X has no beginning (a coin has two sides, you can't have a one sided coin, can you?).

Furthermore: How would one "reach from" the past to now?
You cannot live in the past - you can only think about the past, but also thinking always happens now.
You cannot escape now, no matter how much you think about past or future - and basing a theory on the capacity to remember past events, is no proof for or against an absolute beginning (while yes, you may postulate some conceptual "proof" for a limited thing "beginning" at some time in the imaginary past - eg once you were born and now you are alive here/now - but in truth, even this body didn't really have a beginning - it didn't just pop into existence from nothing).

I believe it is a mistake to believe that one can proof that some thing has a beginning (or and end) and the mistake just amplifies if this "thing" has been awarded with attributes such as eternal or infinite.