Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

God is real this world is caused by God.

You said that you read the OP in my thread - My "Burning Bush-like" encounter with God. - viewtopic.php?t=41452

In which case, do you actually think that your statement about God being "real," along with the world being "caused by God" is a new revelation for me?

A forever fruitful purpose cannot help you to not get bored from your life.

Well, you suggested that simply "knowing" the meaning of life will be enough to keep us happy and satisfied for eternity. However, I'm bored already at just the thought of such a stagnant proposition.

Look, bahman, it seems as if we both believe that our lives will continue on forever in a higher context of reality,...

...of which I suggested that the creation and maintenance of our own personal and autonomous universe created from the living fabric of our own mind...

(just as I [and Berkeley] proclaim God has done with her mind)

...is the only thing that would make sense for an entity in possession of eternal life.

However, even though I am certain that you don't fully understand what the above proposal entails, if you can think of something that would be less boring and more purposeful than that, then let's hear it.

And lastly, we simply don't know what our actual psychology will be like in our fully-awakened, eternal state of consciousness.

YES 'we' do.

And, 'you' will also, when, and if, 'you' get and reach HERE, as well.

Therefore, it is foolish to make predictions from our present level of being about whether or not one can get bored in that higher level of being.
_______

But 'we' already, exactly, KNOW.

[Age]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

On the other hand, logic only exists because we exist. And what do the rules of human language...rules that we mere mortals have invented/discovered...have to do with grasping the existence of existence itself? Assuming we are the only intelligent life form in the universe and that "somehow" God or No God we did acquire autonomy, how to even begin to grasp questions like this when for billions of years there were no minds around to ask them?

With the H.O.W. formula.

That is HOW to even begin to grasp any and all questions.

The existence of existence itself seems to be no less "spooky" than it ever was. In fact, the more astrophysicists discover about the staggering strangeness of things "out there" the "spookier" it becomes.

Does the word 'spookier' here imply 'scariness' or something else?

[bahman]

You stated the following...


However, seeing how I obviously have no life and nothing better to do at the moment, I have taken the time to compile a random sampling of your previous statements on that issue [bracketed interjections mine]...

I could go on and on, bahman, on how you've contradicted your "there's only one mind" assertion, but I think I've made my point.

You should warn people of their need to wear a neck brace when reading your posts.

(Continued in next post)
_______

You are mixing the mind with persons,...

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

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

...the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while the person is physical.

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

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.

There was a long time I believed that each person has a mind but that idea has changed into one mind.

And that's where you seem to have taken a wrong turn in your reasoning.

No, that is a very crucial change.

The problem with the former idea was that we are moving and as a result, our minds move as well. This leads to a change in mind, mind however changeless, therefore we have a problem that can be solved by assuming that there is only one mind.

What do you mean "our minds"? [again, plural]

I thought you said there is only "one mind."

Fortunately, I'm wearing my neck brace.

(Continued in next post)
_______

The mind is simply a substance with the ability to experience and cause. I used to think that each of us has many minds but as I mentioned here I faced a problem with this picture and had to change it to one mind.

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

God is real this world is caused by God.

You said that you read the OP in my thread - My "Burning Bush-like" encounter with God. - viewtopic.php?t=41452

In which case, do you actually think that your statement about God being "real," along with the world being "caused by God" is a new revelation for me?

A forever fruitful purpose cannot help you to not get bored from your life.

Well, you suggested that simply "knowing" the meaning of life will be enough to keep us happy and satisfied for eternity. However, I'm bored already at just the thought of such a stagnant proposition.

Look, bahman, it seems as if we both believe that our lives will continue on forever in a higher context of reality,...

...of which I suggested that the creation and maintenance of our own personal and autonomous universe created from the living fabric of our own mind...

(just as I [and Berkeley] proclaim God has done with her mind)

...is the only thing that would make sense for an entity in possession of eternal life.

However, even though I am certain that you don't fully understand what the above proposal entails, if you can think of something that would be less boring and more purposeful than that, then let's hear it.

And lastly, we simply don't know what our actual psychology will be like in our fully-awakened, eternal state of consciousness. Therefore, it is foolish to make predictions from our present level of being about whether or not one can get bored in that higher level of being.
_______

I don't know what the meaning is. It is neither thought nor feeling. If it is real and it could fulfill us completely then we will be alright otherwise we will have problems.

[bahman]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

On the other hand, logic only exists because we exist. And what do the rules of human language...rules that we mere mortals have invented/discovered...have to do with grasping the existence of existence itself? Assuming we are the only intelligent life form in the universe and that "somehow" God or No God we did acquire autonomy, how to even begin to grasp questions like this when for billions of years there were no minds around to ask them?

The existence of existence itself seems to be no less "spooky" than it ever was. In fact, the more astrophysicists discover about the staggering strangeness of things "out there" the "spookier" it becomes.

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

[seeds]

You are mixing the mind with persons,...

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

I explained in my former post that I used to believe that there are many minds. I however faced a problem with this picture since if each person has several minds...

Yes, I remember you making that argument, and of course there was a problem with it, and that's because the notion of each person having "several minds" is nonsense!

One person = One mind, period!

...and if he moves the mind changes its location and therefore changes...

So what?

If a person learns something new, or creates a completely new theory of reality, or an abstract artist imagines and paints something never envisioned before, their minds have undergone change,

Indeed, that's what minds do, they forever learn, evolve, expand, and thus, change.

Mind however changeless therefore there must be one omnipresent mind that takes care of changes.

More nonsense, bahman.

Again, a person's mind is forever evolving, growing, and changing.

Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the "agent" or owner of a mind is forever evolving, growing, and changing,

Whereas, again, the "mind" is simply a word we use to refer to the living "spatial arena" (or closed "bubble") in which all of the growing, evolving, and changing takes place.

For example, this...



...can be thought of as being a rudimentary visualization of God's mind (of which there is only one).

Indeed, in the quest of trying to figure out what those galaxy-shaped structures are made of, humans have discovered that the entire contents of that bubble seems to be created from an infinitely malleable (informationally-based) substance that is capable of being formed into absolutely anything "imaginable" (just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created).

Again, bahman, the truth of reality (the truth behind this grand illusion) is almost becoming too obvious.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

...the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while the person is physical.

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

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.

No, bahman, you don't have "proof" of anything whatsoever.

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.
_______

[iambiguous]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

On the other hand, logic only exists because we exist. And what do the rules of human language...rules that we mere mortals have invented/discovered...have to do with grasping the existence of existence itself? Assuming we are the only intelligent life form in the universe and that "somehow" God or No God we did acquire autonomy, how to even begin to grasp questions like this when for billions of years there were no minds around to ask them?

The existence of existence itself seems to be no less "spooky" than it ever was. In fact, the more astrophysicists discover about the staggering strangeness of things "out there" the "spookier" it becomes.

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

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.

[bahman]

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

I explained in my former post that I used to believe that there are many minds. I however faced a problem with this picture since if each person has several minds...

Yes, I remember you making that argument, and of course there was a problem with it, and that's because the notion of each person having "several minds" is nonsense!

One person = One mind, period!

No, each person does not have a mind. There is only one mind which is omnipresent and changeless.

...and if he moves the mind changes its location and therefore changes...

So what?

If a person learns something new, or creates a completely new theory of reality, or an abstract artist imagines and paints something never envisioned before, their minds have undergone change,

Indeed, that's what minds do, they forever learn, evolve, expand, and thus, change.

Well, if the mind changes then another mind is needed to support this change!

Mind however changeless therefore there must be one omnipresent mind that takes care of changes.

More nonsense, bahman.

Again, a person's mind is forever evolving, growing, and changing.

Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the "agent" or owner of a mind is forever evolving, growing, and changing,

Whereas, again, the "mind" is simply a word we use to refer to the living "spatial arena" (or closed "bubble") in which all of the growing, evolving, and changing takes place.

For example, this...



...can be thought of as being a rudimentary visualization of God's mind (of which there is only one).

Indeed, in the quest of trying to figure out what those galaxy-shaped structures are made of, humans have discovered that the entire contents of that bubble seems to be created from an infinitely malleable (informationally-based) substance that is capable of being formed into absolutely anything "imaginable" (just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created).

Again, bahman, the truth of reality (the truth behind this grand illusion) is almost becoming too obvious.

(Continued in next post)
_______

No, it is not nonsenes. The mind by definition causes change. If your mind changes then it means that there is a need for another mind that supports the change in the former mind.

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

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.

No, bahman, you don't have "proof" of anything whatsoever.

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.
_______

I have the proofs but it seems that you are not interested.

[bahman]

On the other hand, logic only exists because we exist. And what do the rules of human language...rules that we mere mortals have invented/discovered...have to do with grasping the existence of existence itself? Assuming we are the only intelligent life form in the universe and that "somehow" God or No God we did acquire autonomy, how to even begin to grasp questions like this when for billions of years there were no minds around to ask them?

The existence of existence itself seems to be no less "spooky" than it ever was. In fact, the more astrophysicists discover about the staggering strangeness of things "out there" the "spookier" it becomes.

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

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)

[Age]

You are mixing the mind with persons,...

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

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?

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?

...the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while the person is physical.

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

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.

And, that you became aware of the 'problems' in those claims, afterwards.

There was a long time I believed that each person has a mind but that idea has changed into one mind.

And that's where you seem to have taken a wrong turn in your reasoning.

No, that is a very crucial change.

The problem with the former idea was that we are moving and as a result, our minds move as well. This leads to a change in mind, mind however changeless, therefore we have a problem that can be solved by assuming that there is only one mind.

What do you mean "our minds"? [again, plural]

I thought you said there is only "one mind."

Fortunately, I'm wearing my neck brace.

(Continued in next post)
_______

The mind is simply a substance with the ability to experience and cause. I used to think that each of us has many minds but as I mentioned here I faced a problem with this picture and had to change it to one mind.

[Age]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

On the other hand, logic only exists because we exist. And what do the rules of human language...rules that we mere mortals have invented/discovered...have to do with grasping the existence of existence itself? Assuming we are the only intelligent life form in the universe and that "somehow" God or No God we did acquire autonomy, how to even begin to grasp questions like this when for billions of years there were no minds around to ask them?

The existence of existence itself seems to be no less "spooky" than it ever was. In fact, the more astrophysicists discover about the staggering strangeness of things "out there" the "spookier" it becomes.

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

This is not necessarily so, at all.

[Age]

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

I explained in my former post that I used to believe that there are many minds. I however faced a problem with this picture since if each person has several minds...

Yes, I remember you making that argument, and of course there was a problem with it, and that's because the notion of each person having "several minds" is nonsense!

One person = One mind, period!

I wonder how long it will take this one to recognize and see the 'problem' and 'issue' here with this 'nonsense'?

...and if he moves the mind changes its location and therefore changes...

So what?

If a person learns something new, or creates a completely new theory of reality, or an abstract artist imagines and paints something never envisioned before, their minds have undergone change,

Indeed, that's what minds do, they forever learn, evolve, expand, and thus, change.

But, obviously not if you people have or own minds, and are also holding onto a 'belief', then, obviously, those have or owned 'minds' could not possibly change, in regards to what is being believed to be true.

Mind however changeless therefore there must be one omnipresent mind that takes care of changes.

More nonsense, bahman.

Again, a person's mind is forever evolving, growing, and changing.

Well, if you had a mind "seeds", then you are obviously proving this claim of yours here not true. As 'your mind' is not even budging, let alone changing, at all here.

Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the "agent" or owner of a mind is forever evolving, growing, and changing,

But, if the so-called 'owner' of 'a mind' holds onto 'a belief' rigidly, then how, exactly, is that one, forever, evolving, growing, and changing, exactly?

Whereas, again, the "mind" is simply a word we use to refer to the living "spatial arena" (or closed "bubble") in which all of the growing, evolving, and changing takes place.

So, to this one here now, 'a mind' is 'owned' by 'some agent', who is actually growing, evolving, and changing within 'a mind'.

Maybe this one really cannot see the, very obvious, contradiction here, but if this one could, explaining that 'one mind' is 'owned' by 'another agent' and not by you 'human agents' is not going to help clear absolutely anything up here.

But, if you think or believe that you can "seeds", then by all means please go and do it.

For example, this...



...can be thought of as being a rudimentary visualization of God's mind (of which there is only one).

So, 'now' you are also saying that there is 'only one' as well, right?

Also, and by the way, 'that' could be thought of as many, many other things as well. And, there could be many, upon many, other was of thinking and/or visualizing what some call 'God's mind', as well, also.

Now, you have been questioned and challenged over this one and only 'visualization', by you only, and informed of how and why 'that' could not be True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct, too.

Indeed, in the quest of trying to figure out what those galaxy-shaped structures are made of, humans have discovered that the entire contents of that bubble seems to be created from an infinitely malleable (informationally-based) substance that is capable of being formed into absolutely anything "imaginable" (just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created).

1. What does 'infinitely malleable (informationally-based) substance' actually look like?

2. What is that, supposed, substance made up of, exactly?

3, Why only the contents of some made up by you 'bubble'?

Again, bahman, the truth of reality (the truth behind this grand illusion) is almost becoming too obvious.

(Continued in next post)
_______

From, well my perspective anyway, what you call a 'grand illusion' appears to be very much of a 'grand delusion', and a very grand one at that.

Although there is some actually irrefutable Truth in what you say and claim here, just like there is some actually irrefutable Truth in what all those who have had so-called 'God-experiences' here, in this forum, the way you and them go about explaining 'those experiences' is only put you and others further away from who and what God is, exactly.

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

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.

No, bahman, you don't have "proof" of anything whatsoever.

This is a very huge claim, especially considering it is coming from one who has not yet produced any actual proof here neither.

Also, just like you might have some actual proof, so to might "bahman" have some actual proof, but which you both are just yet to present any, actually.

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"?

Are you also aware that some of 'us' here can very, very clearly, easily, and simply the quite a number of flaws in your assertions here?