I will no longer be posting on the forum as it is not actually necessary for me to do so any moreAge wrote:
Good to see you back by the way
I will however carry on trying to understand you as best as I can based upon what you post here
I will no longer be posting on the forum as it is not actually necessary for me to do so any moreAge wrote:
Good to see you back by the way
Note that you'd need some set theory background to understand this, but given even the fact that there are an infinite real numbers between any two numbers. [usually defined formally as a type of 'equality' or one-to-one and 'onto' relationship called the cardinality of the 'continuum'] This means that we have real reason to infer that where the universe can be infinite in both directions of time, these can still be 'bounded' by definitive ends. This is like saying that we can define any interval that is in between two definite fixed points but NOT include those points. As such, an 'origin' is possible. That you cannot determine this from inside relates to 'limits'.Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:28 pmThere's no such thing as no cause either. Just like nothing, there may be always a particular lack of cause; "I ordered that cheeseburger for no reason." isn't actually no cause at all.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:08 pmWhat better than to recognize that "absolutely nothing" suffices as the particular identity to "no cause" then!
Nothing is thus multiplicity as the observation of multiple parts.
That is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.
Nothingness cannot be observed except through distinction, this distinction necessitates multiplicity. For example water and air in glass are observed through the distinct line which seperates them in one respect and contains them in another. This line, between the water and air, is inherently empty. Void thus acts as a means of distinction with these distinctive boundaries being fundamentally empty.
What EXACTLY is 'this' now, which you allege I have no purpose to discuss?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 amThen you have no purpose to discussing this with anyone beyond trying to impose some impossible burden of convincing you differently for anything.Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:34 am
What do you think or believe 'it' is that I am trying to 'understand' here EXACTLY?
Have you forgotten that it is 'you' who has developed some 'theory', which you want 'understood'.
I do NOT do 'theory', as they are completely UNNECESSARY. Especially considering what is directly in front of you.
You appear very confused here.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am You assert a definitive closed mind THAT any theory or opinion of anyone's is necessary.
Like 'theories', I neither do 'debate'. And, I also neither 'believe' this.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am Therefore you have no justification to debate when you simplistically believe that all realities speak for themselves.
When, and IF, 'you' ever understand who thee 'I' IS, then 'you' will KNOW.
Who here do 'you' propose is "complaining"?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am If we can see this by default, then there is no need to complain if WE SEE something differrent than you.
My bad.....I thought we were discussing in a philosophy site under the subforum, metaphysics!..?Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:36 pmNo it's not, no it doesn't.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:25 pmThat is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.
But tell me then, given what you think you know, what do you reduce physics to as elemental properties.
That's basically a physics question but if you want a metaphysical answer, deconstruction according to logic and purpose. The base of the ToE in physics is Delta (change over time), because all physical things, mass, matter, gravity, energy, causality, the speed of light, etc. can be understood in relation to it, and through it in relation to reach other. Change is the universal substrate of the universe.
For 'us' to accept that there was a beginning, then, for 'me' anyway, there would NEED TO BE a logical AND an empirical possibility for this to be able to occur.
How can 'you', logically, conclude there was 'a nothing' if as you said, " 'it' was either something or nothing "?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
What you wrote is NOT a possibility.
This is True because the cause of EVERY thing comes from TWO things.
WHY do 'you' say, "Y'all", here?
I can call 'what' God? What is the 'it' here?
What IS 'God', which you, allegedly, have an argument against?
LOL
LOL
Does the causality principle REALLY state this?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pmSort of. Let me change the argument a littleAge wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 amTo me, you appear to make "conclusions", from the most illogical sense of reasoning.
You "argument" goes, and correct me if I am wrong here:
P1. To cause the action of going from one state of affair to another state of affair an agent is needed.
P2. Principle of causality does not apply to nothing.
C. Therefore, no agent is needed for going from nothing (in here) to something (in here).
Is this an "argument"?
If no, then what is your "argument".
P1) PoC states that an agent is needed for going from one state of affair to another one
Based on 'what' EXACTLY, besides your OWN BELIEF?
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how the brain works in that it will say just about ANY thing to back up and support the ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, within that brain.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm C1) Therefore, the process of nothing (the first state of the affair) to something (the second state of the affair) is possible
P3) There was nothing in the starting and there is something now
C2) From C1 and P3 one can conclude that there is no need for an agent, so call God.
Does this mean you agree with me that an 'agent', or 'some thing' is needed to change from one state of affair to another, or the next, state of affair.
But WHY do you 'have to' show these two things? What is the actual purpose in showing these two things? What is 'it' EXACTLY that you want to achieve here?
But WHY 'assume' ANY thing here?
What are 'you' proposing this 'God' thing is exactly here?
Do you REALLY BELIEVE that you are saying things in logically reasoned ways here?
This is getting beyond a joke now.
But HOW could they, or ANY thing else, "pop out" of 'nothing'. Considering there is ALREADY some thing, that is; thee Universe, then this means that there is nothing that something could "pop out" of.
Speak for 'you' ONLY.
What is ACTUALLY CLEAR, to me, is obviously NOT YET CLEAR, to you.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pmI hope that things are clear by now.Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 amWas it REALLY?
From what I have observed in your comments is just you expressing your OWN BELIEFS in many different ways as though they are already true, right, and correct. From what I have seen in your comments you are just 'trying' absolutely any thing, which you think, or believe, backs up and supports your already held BELIEFS.
Which ALL leads backs on to Itself. This, after all, is HOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things is REVEALED, and thus becomes CLEAR and KNOWN.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pmRegress means that you are dealing with an endless chain of things or in other words, there is always something before or after another thing in this endless set of things.
Do you have ANY proof for this claim.
LOL
The, so called, 'regress' is not acceptable to 'you', and some "others", only because of the distorted way you LOOK AT, USE, and SEE that word and its meaning.
MUCH CLEARER to the readers now, thanks.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pmI hope that things are clear now.Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 amTo me, what 'they' are, are:
1. You BELIEVE, without ANY actual PROOF, that causality only applies to material things.
2. So, EVERY thing else you write here, in this thread, is based solely on only 'THAT' what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, and NOT on what IS actually True.
3. Your ARGUMENTS end up being unsound and/or invalid because of 1 and 2, which can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post here, in this thread.
4. Your "CONCLUSION" in your opening post that your own first three sentences "also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God", is completely and utterly absurd and irrational.
5. You have CONCLUDED that "nothing to something is possible" based on nothing but your own ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS.
6. And then to 'automatically' ARRIVE AT and CONCLUDE that this then MEANS there is no need for God is just illogical to the extreme.
So, what the flaws and faults are, in your thinking here, is;
The ASSUMPTIONS you make, and the CONCLUSIONS you arrive at, come from the BELIEFS you already have.
You then use your own BELIEFS, ONLY, to back up and support your own newly formed ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which were obtained previously from ill-gotten BELIEFS in the first place.
The MAIN flaw and fault in your thinking here is;
You use your OWN ill-gotten BELIEFS to LOOK AT and SEE the "world' from, which is how you form your ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which is a form of 'circular reasoning', or what could also be called and labeled as a form of 'regression', itself.
You have NOT "already elaborated" 'that'. This is because you are stating the EXACT OPPOSITE.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pmThat I already elaborated.Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 amHow does this 'logically' follow?
Something to nothing has NOT yet occurred, unless some proof is provided. But until then 'change', itself, NOT 'not possible'.
Change is not just possible but is in fact impossible to NOT happen.
There could not, logically nor empirically, exist 'not change'. But 'something to nothing' has still NOT occurred, as 'something to nothing' is just NOT logically and empirically IMPOSSIBLE as 'nothing to something' is.
By this statement of yours here, you CLEARLY have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what I have been saying and referring to, EXACTLY.
So, you are talking about some 'thing', which cannot be in two places at the same time, correct?
If a human being, for example, leaves a room, then the human being does NOT vanish.
LOL You REALLY WILL 'try' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support YOUR OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pmYes. Mind is needed for order though. Otherwise, you can have a chain of nothing to something which has no order in it, complete chaos.
Okay, so this 'Mind', to you, JUST EXISTS, always has and always will correct?
In that case, some would label this [Mind] Thing, 'God', Itself.