The circular reasoning
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.
Comments (13)
How do you know that?
But not to us. Why should we take your word for it?
This seems to be an assumption on your part. Please elaborate.
Welcome to the forum. :smile:
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.
So you have a good feeling about this. That makes no difference to us. Why should we care?
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.
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.
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?
Isnt 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?