• Beena
    22
    The circular reasoning, also known as circular syllogism or circular fallacy, begs the question, because a valid premise is missing and cannot be explained. Yet, many explanations are done using it. The cosmic mystery is a circular reasoning. So we keep trying to find the valid missing premise. But it cannot be found ever. That valid premise is - what is behind the beginning of the cosmos? If we say xyz, then we want to know how xyz? Beginning and end scripture says is tied on a circle or sphere to the same spot. End ensures beginning and beginning ensures end. Round and round life goes. Seasons, planets, life etc. Life can move from home to work and then back home. If the beginning is not tied to the end but stands absolute, how could it be there. Assuming it's there, but then it cannot move. With the circularity, life and world can move. And are also in existence. So from nothing to everything and then back to nothing. Again begin and go on and on and on. No one knows nothing is first or everything is first. Beginning is first or end is first. Because the valid premise is always going to be not there. From nothing to everything, is just a try at explaining the cosmic beginning. But for the cosmos to be, the end has to be before the beginning, or why and how could it begin. How could it be defined. This is the way the cosmos is and why planets and galaxies etc. go round and round. Heaven revealed this to me.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    Heaven revealed this to me.Beena

    How do you know that?
  • Banno
    25.2k
    Heaven revealed this to me.Beena

    But not to us. Why should we take your word for it?
  • jgill
    3.9k
    But for the cosmos to be, the end has to be before the beginning, or why and how could it begin.Beena

    This seems to be an assumption on your part. Please elaborate.

    Welcome to the forum. :smile:
  • Beena
    22
    How do i know about the revelation? Because it registers on my mind as an idea and also as distinctly coming from someone specific in heaven, which in this case are two, the revealers - god jesus and goddess saraswati.
  • Beena
    22
    Just because some revelation came my way, would i have to prove it? Isn't it self explanatory in its very substance and so needs no proof?
  • Beena
    22
    The end tied to beginning on a circle is not an invalid assumption. It's only logical to assume. Spring cannot begin without the winter stuff already there.
  • Wayfarer
    22.7k
    Just because some revelation came my way, would i have to prove it? Isn't it self explanatory in its very substance and so needs no proof?Beena

    Philosophy requires reasoned arguments. A revelation may be meaningful to you, but the onus of proof is on you to demonstrate why it ought to be meaningful to anyone else. Or don't say anything about it, but demonstrate what it has taught you by reasoned argument, from premisses to a conclusion.
  • Beena
    22
    Yes, philosophy requires reasoned arguments, true, but truth does not need any proof because it's self-explanatory. And what heaven explains by way of revelation is truth.
  • Banno
    25.2k
    Because it registers on my mindBeena

    So you have a good feeling about this. That makes no difference to us. Why should we care?
  • Wayfarer
    22.7k
    philosophy requires reasoned arguments, true, but truth does not need any proof because it's self-explanatory. And what heaven explains by way of revelation is truth.Beena

    However, you have joined a philosophy forum, and whatever explanations heaven provides to you, and whether they're truthful or not, may not be of any interest to the other participants, if you can see what I mean.
  • sime
    1.1k
    Putting it cynically, your proposition and methodology of divine revelation isn't qualitatively different to the thoughts of the average physicist, who uses commonsense to argue for both the big-bang theory whilst simultaneously denying a beginning of time.

    Yet there are alternative theories, such as the Hawking-Hartle proposal that time is finite but lacks a boundary, that consider the question as to whether the universe truly has a beginning or not to be a topological question whose answer is relative to perspective.

    Also, the subjective nature of phenomenological time concerning the intimate world of experience, is a distinct question whose relationship to the theoretical time of physics isn't decided. So a person could conceivably be a psychological presentist who denies the existence of a beginning/end with respect to their world of experience, who nevertheless believes physical time to have a beginning/end.
  • universeness
    6.3k
    which in this case are two, the revealers - god jesus and goddess saraswati.Beena

    You seem to be in communication with more than one deity. Are you polytheist? or are the names god, jesus and sarawati all different names for the single character, at the other end of your comm channel.
    Where is the circle you assume in a perpetual/eternal chaos-order-chaos-order cycle, which seems more like a linear cycle to me?
    Why do you assume the actual truth/facts regarding the origin of our universe is something YOU are able to KNOW as an objective truth? Especially as all you have basically claimed so far is, that I know that I know that I know god did it as it told ME so! Is that honestly all you got?
  • Mww
    4.9k


    Isn’t the conclusion an exercise in your own petitio principii, insofar as the initial premises regarding the origin of the universe are not shown to relate to the heaven from which the revelation issued?

    Was that the whole point?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.