Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[bahman]

Yes, you have. You don’t seem to understand what a beginning is.

I understand what beginning is. Do you understand what being to exist means? If yes, please elaborate.

Beginning is not being then being.

No, that is not correct. I used "begin to exist" for the case that something did not exist and then exists. Time however can have a beginning by this I mean a point from which time exists afterward. It is meaningless to talk about the previous point since there is no point before the beginning of time.

[bahman]

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself. My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments. And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all. Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)

Again, from my own existential frame of mind, you're still making this all about the argument. Human logic constructing syllogisms such that abstract premises yield abstract conclusions.

Meanwhile the laws of nature have been around billions of years before we mere mortals came along. We don't even know how on Earth -- God or No God -- biological life came to exist at all. Let alone how it's all connected to, say, this...

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[Age]

I explained in my former post that I used to believe that there are many minds.

In which, supposed, former post did you, supposedly, explain this?

A long time ago and in many posts.

I however faced a problem with this picture since if each person has several minds and if he moves the mind changes its location and therefore changes. Mind however changeless therefore there must be one omnipresent mind that takes care of changes.

Great to see that you noticed and acknowledge one of your so-called 'problems' here.

Did you also notice how since the thinking or belief has changed within 'that body', then, according to your logic here, then this must have been 'taken care of' by the One Mind?

Yes.

Let 'us' not forget that you answered and clarified yes here.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that you were wrong.

I know. I never said nor even thought that there was, were you assuming I was. To me it was absolutely excellent that you acknowledge when you were Wrong.

No, my interpretation is alright. I have proof for the mind. I have proof for it to be changeless. I have proof for it to be omnipresent.

But, let 'us' also not forget that you also said you 'had proof' and 'an argument' for your previous claims about 'minds', also.

Yes.

So, do you still think you had actual proof for your previous claims?

And, obviously, once more, just having 'an argument' for absolutely anything does not mean that 'that argument' is a sound and valid argument, and as I have been continually informing you people here, 'Only sound and valid arguments are worth repeating. Again, because those ones are the only ones that cannot be refuted by anyone, and so are what shows and reveals the actual, and irrefutable, Truth of things. Or, in other words they just present an unambiguous Fact, which cannot be refuted.

[Age]

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself.

But, it only 'appears' this way to some of you, only because you human beings are still evolving towards 'catching up'.

There is absolutely nothing that so-called 'transcends' the 'human condition', itself, because a 'condition' within 'human beings' is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.

Objective Truth is actually found and uncovered by you human beings, from which you then evolve, or transcend, into and up to the next stage of evolution, itself.

My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments.

Will you provide any actual examples?

I ask because I have not yet seen any actual Truth, which conflicts with any actual True 'value judgment'. And, I say and use 'True' to denote not just one's individual personal 'value judgment'.

And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all.

Human beings, in the days when this is being written, who do 'science' are so, so far away from the actual and irrefutable Truth.

Everything, also known as 'the Universe', did not come out of 'nothing at all'. And, to even just presume that It could, will just lead those further astray. As can be clearly seen, hitherto when this is being written.

Now, to prove, irrefutably, that the Universe did not begin, did not come out of nothing at all, and is not expanding is really a very simple and easy thing to do, and to understand, as well.

Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

Every thing that is going to happen is 'deterministic', as can also be shown and proved True.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

All of 'that' as well fits in, perfectly, with the GUTOE, which, by the way, has ended up proving Itself irrefutably, and thus Objectively True, as well.

Dear channeled entity who calls itself "Age",...

...if you are going to smother a thread beneath the putrid evacuation of your mental bowels, don't you think you should at least attach the correct name to whomever it is you are crapping on?


The quotes you are attributing to me were made by iambiguous.

Did you receive this post of mine in your notifications "seeds"?

Hit the edit button and correct your mistakes.

Now, because you told me what to do, I shall not.

I was just about to edit it, that is, until I just read this demand of yours here.

So, this will now remain, exactly, as it stands. Unless, of course, you can figure out some other way to get it edited, and thus changed.

Also, in regard to this,...

Like the rest of us, you have pure "conjecture."

You need to stop assuming that you are dealing with metaphysical neophytes here who cannot analyze your assertions and see the flaws.

Are you aware that you appear to believe that there are no flaws in your assertions here "seeds"?

...anyone with the most minimal ability to comprehend what they are reading would be able to understand that implicit in what is underlined below in that statement I made to bahman...

Like the rest of us, you have pure "conjecture."

...is a clear admission (by me) that my theories could be wrong.

So why, when what is pointed out and explained to you is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect in 'your theories' you just keep ignoring this, and just keep expressing the exact same 'theories' as though there are no flaws in them?

Some of the flaws in 'your theories' are so blatantly obvious, yet you cannot seem to see and recognize them, even after you have been explained where they are, exactly, and even why they are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, exactly.

What is Wrong in 'your theories' here has been explained to you "seeds". So, why not go and correct them?

Please, little Age, I know that life is new and exciting for you, and that you are eager to know if the fire engine is red and if the cow goes moo,...

...but you need to allow the adults to talk among themselves without you constantly interrupting them.

Don't you have a Nintendo or some other games to play with?
_______

If only you knew "seeds". If only you knew.

[Age]

I am so happy that you got it!

you were joking here right "commonsense"?

Correct

Thank you for clarifying here.

[Age]

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)

It looks like you are just changing from no time to time—just another way of saying from nothing to something.

So if nothing to something is impossible, then time has no beginning.

Wrong! I won't repeat the argument though.

If the words 'nothing to something is logically impossible' means that there was no beginning of anything from absolutely nothing, then this, literally, 'time' is eternal.

This is of course, unless other things existed previously, and then (whatever you mean by and with the 'time' word) started 'after' or 'later'. Which, again, some would say and point out straight away is just another, of the very many, contradictions here.

Now, "commonsense" was and is not all at Wrong here, well not to me anyway. And, considering that you will not 'stick around' and stand by your claim and so-called 'argument' here in a way could mean that you might just be seeing how they are Wrong, and/or how you cannot overcome what is very clearly a contradiction in what you are saying and claiming here.

[Age]

Wrong! I won't repeat the argument though.

If nothing to something is possible, then time had a beginning at some point.

Sure, but as I have said several times that does not mean that it began to exist.

Instead of just saying and claiming that when something 'had a beginning' then 'this', to you alone, does not mean 'began to exist', you start explaining to 'us' readers here these two claims together could not be a 'self-refuting contradiction'?

That is; of course if you can.

Do you think or believe you could?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

Sure, but as I have said several times that does not mean that it began to exist.

Yes, you have. You don’t seem to understand what a beginning is.

I understand what beginning is. Do you understand what being to exist means? If yes, please elaborate.

Did you mean here, 'begin to exist', or, 'being to exist'?

[Age]

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself. My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments. And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all. Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)

Again, from my own existential frame of mind, you're still making this all about the argument. Human logic constructing syllogisms such that abstract premises yield abstract conclusions.

Meanwhile the laws of nature have been around billions of years before we mere mortals came along. We don't even know how on Earth -- God or No God -- biological life came to exist at all.

And, the reason you human beings, in the days when this is being written, still did not yet know how is partly because of your persistent Incorrect use of words and of definitions, and from them the Incorrect way you 'look at', and thus finally 'see', things.

Let alone how it's all connected to, say, this...

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa

Now, how 'all-of-this' is connected, perfectly, together, as One, is Truly very simple and very easy to comprehend and understand.

One just needs to learn how-to 'look at', and thus 'see', things, properly and Correctly, first.

I have already partly explained how 'this' can be learned, comprehended, and understood here, in this forum, and I am still waiting for absolutely anyone who is Truly curious and interested in learning HOW also.

See, once you human beings have evolved enough, having learned how to 'look at' and 'see' things properly and Correctly, or in other words 'absolutely crystal clearly, then each and every one of them will keep 'evolving' and 'growing', in the True and Right way, in Life, and also exponentially.

[bahman]

In which, supposed, former post did you, supposedly, explain this?

A long time ago and in many posts.

Great to see that you noticed and acknowledge one of your so-called 'problems' here.

Did you also notice how since the thinking or belief has changed within 'that body', then, according to your logic here, then this must have been 'taken care of' by the One Mind?

Yes.

Let 'us' not forget that you answered and clarified yes here.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that you were wrong.

I know. I never said nor even thought that there was, were you assuming I was. To me it was absolutely excellent that you acknowledge when you were Wrong.

But, let 'us' also not forget that you also said you 'had proof' and 'an argument' for your previous claims about 'minds', also.

Yes.

So, do you still think you had actual proof for your previous claims?

And, obviously, once more, just having 'an argument' for absolutely anything does not mean that 'that argument' is a sound and valid argument, and as I have been continually informing you people here, 'Only sound and valid arguments are worth repeating. Again, because those ones are the only ones that cannot be refuted by anyone, and so are what shows and reveals the actual, and irrefutable, Truth of things. Or, in other words they just present an unambiguous Fact, which cannot be refuted.

Yes, I have sound and valid arguments for what I am discussing.

[Age]

A long time ago and in many posts.


Yes.

Let 'us' not forget that you answered and clarified yes here.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that you were wrong.

I know. I never said nor even thought that there was, were you assuming I was. To me it was absolutely excellent that you acknowledge when you were Wrong.

Yes.

So, do you still think you had actual proof for your previous claims?

And, obviously, once more, just having 'an argument' for absolutely anything does not mean that 'that argument' is a sound and valid argument, and as I have been continually informing you people here, 'Only sound and valid arguments are worth repeating. Again, because those ones are the only ones that cannot be refuted by anyone, and so are what shows and reveals the actual, and irrefutable, Truth of things. Or, in other words they just present an unambiguous Fact, which cannot be refuted.

Yes, I have sound and valid arguments for what I am discussing.

Then 'those arguments' cannot be refuted by absolutely anyone. So, what this means is that you, "bahman", are expressing and/or showing what the actual irrefutable Truth is of things here.

However, just like before 'your views' might change here, so then what you 'now currently' are saying you have sound and valid arguments for, could also change right?