Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:26 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:27 pm
I'm hoping you share the meaning of "argument" to be "the formal set of premises that demonstrate a distinct conclusion" (a 'logical' argument).
Under this assumption, obviously one cannot infer THAT this could not be the case should they no longer be alive to judge. But you can infer this from life inductively from experiencing what you define in common with other living things that you see be 'born' and/or 'die'. That is, you 'extend' your deduced experience of others being born and die to your own life. Note that IF we live beyond this life to some other form of life while maintainng the ability to look back, when you 'die', this may be provable TO YOU, should you pop into another world suddenly upon your perception of death. This too can be questioned. But the point about what you DEFINE about something you perceive outside/beyond yourself as having beginnings and ends, at least suggest it POSSIBLE to be true of Totality, even if not necessarily true. The possibility as presented in sample justly assure you THAT it cannot be
determined NOT-POSSIBLE, as some above assert.
It is NOT POSSIBLE, logically nor empirically, for Universe/Totality/Everything/ALL-THERE-IS to have a beginning nor an end. This is because of both what the Universe/et cetera is made up of and because of how 'It' works.
This, of course, is True until a logically sound and valid argument is formed, which could prove otherwise.
Because of causality, itself, a beginning or an ending of Totality/et cetera, Itself, is both logically and physically/empirically IMPOSSIBLE.
You forget that I
conditioned the statements about origins.
I do NOT care how 'you', so called, "
conditioned the statements about origins", nor do I care about how often 'you' "
condition the statements about origins". The word 'origin' in relation to the Universe/Totality/et cetera is a logical and physical/empirical IMPOSSIBILITY. So, 'conditioning' the word 'origin', in relation to the Universe, will just NEVER work.
Have you forgotten that I have EXPLAINED this ALREADY?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
I already had extensive discussions with you on this when discussing 'walls' in three coinciding threads about possible exhausted positions of spacial barriers. [walls at the begging, end, or inbetween] I already argued that you cannot literally use a scientific argument about the opposing ends. But to assume that there IS NO ends also would require proof, something that you cannot do.
BUT I CAN and have ALREADY PROVEN this. 'you' were, and STILL appear, NOT OPEN to this. Am I correct?
Also, I NEVER HAVE and still do NOT ASSUME that there is NO 'ends'.
To ASSUME that there are ends, or that there are NO ends, is just as ridiculous as ASSUMING ANY thing else.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
We just cannot use science to argue about them.
We CAN, if and when 'you' use 'science' properly AND correctly?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
Rather, we need logic to 'measure' the possibilities and NOT draw certain conclusions in absense of knowledge.
But the knowledge has ALREADY been ascertained. This WAS DONE through, and by, 'logical reasoning'.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
So the default should be to assume absolutely nothing,
YET, here we are some 'thing', which OBVIOUSLY discounts absolutely NO 'thing'.
Also, and by the way, if you 'default' to ASSUMING, then 'you' will continue on your path of NOT YET KNOWING.
I found the default of BEING OPEN far more revealing, AND REWARDING.
How to be Truly OPEN is by NOT 'assuming' ANY thing at all, AND by just being Truly Honest.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
which is equivalent logically to assuming everything possible.
ASSUMING 'absolutely nothing', to me, is NOT, at all, equivalent logically to assuming 'everything possible'. 'Absolutely nothing', to me, is NOT equivalent at all to 'everything possible'. In fact they are the VERY OPPOSITE of be 'equivalent'.
Besides the fact that ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing can all to easily lead one astray, assuming that 'absolutely nothing' is equivalent to, and especially equivalent 'logically' to, assuming 'everything possible' is just way to many assumptions, which can all to easily lead one even FURTHER astray.
To me, you just say this sort of 'stuff' because this sort of 'stuff' is the only way you know how to make 'your' 'theory' appear to be possibly true.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:37 am
Then we try to narrow this down when attempting to determine what is true locally (in our own particular reality at present).
There is ONLY One 'reality' at present.
What do 'you' propose could be ANOTHER 'reality', besides the one 'you' call "our OWN 'particular' 'reality'?
In relation 'causality' and 'the Universe' what is 'true locally' is 'true EVERYWHERE'.