Nothing to something must be possible

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:07 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:16 pm
Age wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:00 pm

Limitless or endless in size or spatially.
Is an endless or limitless thing reachable?
'Reachable' to who or what, EXACTLY?
Time has to pass whether there is a person or not. So your question is irrelevant. Also, I am not going to reply to all your post unless you accept that regress is impossible.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:46 pm
Meno_ wrote:
origami wrote:The first thing an absolutely perfect being would entail is that he would have to exist, because if he didn't exist, he would be less than perfect. So an absolutely perfect being exists.
Again no disagreement there: a perfection can not entail any thing. , and not because It doesn't exist, but because It is invisible and indivisible.
Okay, in the interim, let's consider the above.

Now, either this absolutely perfect being popped into existence out of nothing at all or He/She/It has always existed.
First off; Have ANY of 'you' come to an agreement and an acceptance on what a 'being' IS, EXACTLY?

Then; Have ANY of 'you' considered if this 'being' thing could ACTUALLY EVER be so-called 'perfect'?

If no, to either of these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then ALL else IS moot.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:46 pm
Okay, how would those who believe one or the other go about demonstrating it beyond a "world of words" in which they just define and deduce and "think" this absolutely perfect being into existence?
It is BECAUSE OF 'BELIEF', itself, MOSTLY WHY 'you', adult human beings, are NOT progressing and moving forward with these millennia LONG discussions.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:46 pm Or, if you're someone like MagsJ, you fall back on your "intrinsic self" to settle these things.

Then the part that is of particular interest to me...

Reconciling what you construe to be an absolutely perfect being with this:

"...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."
This is, OBVIOUSLY, just OVER DRAMATISED 'words' in an ATTEMPT to 'try to' "justify" ones' OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm So we wait for someone who is able to find a flaw in my argument.
Again:
If all one is interested in is noting a "flaw" in the language used to explain something, then the exchange can go on and on and on up in the didactic clouds that revolve around definitions and deductions.

But how is that connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm In fact, contemplating this is so utterly mind-boggling, it's still the closest I can now come to God. Him/Her/It being one possible explanation for existence, right? Until, again, you start to wonder if God too popped into existence out of nothing at all or has always existed.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm God could not have always existed. That is regress too. God could not create the universe even if God popped into existence.
I don't doubt that "in your head" the logic of this is impeccable. But, again, I'll wait for the folks in the scientific community to get around to documenting it one way or the other on Nova or on the Science Channel.
WHY ONLY the so-called "scientific community"?

What you say here sounds EXACTLY like the "religious" person who will ONLY listen to those in their CHOSEN "religious community".

Talk about PICKING and CHOSING, FIRST, who AND what to BELIEVE and ACCEPT, ONLY.
That is it, just add the 'factual' word in their somewhere, then there will be someone who WILL BELIEVE what is being SAID or PORTRAYED MUST BE REAL and True.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm No, what I question here are the limitations of logic in regard to such things as morality and religion and those really big metaphysical questions.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm There is no limitation in logic. All sorts of knowledge are built on logic. Life in general and especially intelligent life is not possible without logic.
Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.
WHY do you 'focus more' on this?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?
We ALSO FIND MANY conflicting ASSUMPTIONS and conflicting conclussions in and among the "scientific community", right?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that.
Do ALL of these so-called "objectivists" one REFUSE to accept that?

And are you suggesting here that ALL people SHOULD just 'accept that'?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn.
Are you NOT 'trying to' SUGGEST here that how 'you' think about things is rational, and that if ALL men and women thought, MORE, 'rationally' like 'you' do, then the 'world' would be a better place, "iambiguous"?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Logic revolves around the rules of language. But human beings themselves...where do they fit into the complete understanding of existence itself? How on Earth can we determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping that?
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Because we have the ability to think.
No, in my view, just because brain matter has acquired the ability to think -- given free will of course -- doesn't necessarily establish that thinking brains have the capacity to grasp how existence itself came into existence. Well, other than by way of arguing a conclusion into existence by arguing -- in a world of words -- that only your own premises count in establishing that.

That is what you are doing here, right?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Webster's dictionary: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning"

A priori and a posteriori, how would we go about validating what we think is logically true here? Again, empirically, materially, phenomenologically.

Mathematics, science, and philosophy all intertwined in the definitive explanation?
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Philosophy sits on top of mathematics and science.
Well, that settles that then.
bahman wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:55 pm Does the world of words have any value to you? If not why do you bother with philosophy at all?
Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around how others close the gap between what they think is true "in their head" about things like morality and religion and the Big Questions and what they can demonstrate using the tools of philosophy -- the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method -- all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm I am trying to fill the gaps.
And I'm all for anyone attempting to do that. Instead, the "flaw" in your conclusion is, in my view, the point I raise above about the limitations of logic that far out on the metaphysical limb.

Thus...
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm But how is [your logic] connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?

Though I'm the first to admit that my own speculations here seem able to be nothing more than my own "wild-ass guess".
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Everything starts with a guess. A guess could be right or wrong. It is through systematic thinking that we can find the trueness of a guess. In the end, we will solve this big puzzle.
More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.

I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.
BUT it HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. Some of 'you' were just NOT YET AWARE of this Fact.

Just like how some of 'you' were just NOT YET AWARE of the Fact that SOME ONE had ALREADY SOLVED the part of the puzzle that the earth ACTUALLY revolves around the sun and NOT the other way around.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of "I" transcends death itself or, instead, that's it's oblivion...then all the way back to "star stuff".
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:17 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:19 amThe Truly STUPID are CLOSED and BELIEVE that they ALREADY KNOW the Truth, WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF.
lol
What does 'lol' here mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm So we wait for someone who is able to find a flaw in my argument.
Again:
If all one is interested in is noting a "flaw" in the language used to explain something, then the exchange can go on and on and on up in the didactic clouds that revolve around definitions and deductions.

But how is that connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm In fact, contemplating this is so utterly mind-boggling, it's still the closest I can now come to God. Him/Her/It being one possible explanation for existence, right? Until, again, you start to wonder if God too popped into existence out of nothing at all or has always existed.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm God could not have always existed. That is regress too. God could not create the universe even if God popped into existence.
I don't doubt that "in your head" the logic of this is impeccable. But, again, I'll wait for the folks in the scientific community to get around to documenting it one way or the other on Nova or on the Science Channel.

Here for example: https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how ... ks-science

Or here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres ... nology/all
OK.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm No, what I question here are the limitations of logic in regard to such things as morality and religion and those really big metaphysical questions.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm There is no limitation in logic. All sorts of knowledge are built on logic. Life in general and especially intelligent life is not possible without logic.
Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.

Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.

There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.

Right?

Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
I don't understand why you bring in the issue of morality and religion? These are off-topic.;
Because these are what this one 'focuses on', and bringing them into threads is a way of trolling.

See, this one BELIEVES that people can NOT soundly and validly argue for positions relating to morality or religion, so introduces these into threads LOOKING FOR those 'who will bite', as some say.
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:14 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Logic revolves around the rules of language. But human beings themselves...where do they fit into the complete understanding of existence itself? How on Earth can we determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping that?
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Because we have the ability to think.
No, in my view, just because brain matter has acquired the ability to think -- given free will of course -- doesn't necessarily establish that thinking brains have the capacity to grasp how existence itself came into existence. Well, other than by way of arguing a conclusion into existence by arguing -- in a world of words -- that only your own premises count in establishing that.

That is what you are doing here, right?
Yes.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Webster's dictionary: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning"

A priori and a posteriori, how would we go about validating what we think is logically true here? Again, empirically, materially, phenomenologically.

Mathematics, science, and philosophy all intertwined in the definitive explanation?
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Philosophy sits on top of mathematics and science.
Well, that settles that then.
bahman wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:55 pm Does the world of words have any value to you? If not why do you bother with philosophy at all?
Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around how others close the gap between what they think is true "in their head" about things like morality and religion and the Big Questions and what they can demonstrate using the tools of philosophy -- the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method -- all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women.
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm I am trying to fill the gaps.
And I'm all for anyone attempting to do that. Instead, the "flaw" in your conclusion is, in my view, the point I raise above about the limitations of logic that far out on the metaphysical limb.

Thus...
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm But how is [your logic] connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?

Though I'm the first to admit that my own speculations here seem able to be nothing more than my own "wild-ass guess".
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm Everything starts with a guess. A guess could be right or wrong. It is through systematic thinking that we can find the trueness of a guess. In the end, we will solve this big puzzle.
More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.

I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.

Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of "I" transcends death itself or, instead, that's it's oblivion...then all the way back to "star stuff".
I think we can solve the puzzle.
ALREADY BEEN DONE.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:17 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:07 pm
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:16 pm
Is an endless or limitless thing reachable?
'Reachable' to who or what, EXACTLY?
Time has to pass whether there is a person or not.
Talk about absolutely, completely AND utterly BLIND, or STUPID, or REALLY just MISS UNDERSTANDING COMPLETELY. Which then leads to HOW and WHY?
bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:17 pm So your question is irrelevant.
What you SAY and CLAIM here is absolutely and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here IS.

bahman wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:17 pm Also, I am not going to reply to all your post unless you accept that regress is impossible.
As I POINTED OUT and SHOWED, previously, just saying; 'regress is impossible', is like me saying; 'ambot is impossible, therefore the Universe began'.

ALSO, talk about PRESENTING a PRIME EXAMPLE of BELIEFS and CONFIRMATION BIASES having FULL CONTROL over this one.

In other words, what 'you' are ESSENTIALLY SAYING here "bahman" IS; I am NOT goign to talk to you nor listen to you UNTIL you BELIEVE what I do.

Which is more or less what ALL peoples of FAITH and BELIEFS do, and which peoples in communities like the, supposed, "scientific" one do, when they are CHALLENGED on what they ASSUME or BELIEVE is true AS WELL.

ALL of these LITTLE "groups of peoples" usually will NOT reply NOR talk to "another" UNLESS the "other" agrees with or accepts what these LITTLE people, in these little groups, ASSUME, SAY, or BELIEVE is true.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

We now just WAIT for "uwot" to INFORM us of what "lol" MEANS or REFERS TO, to "uwot".
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

lolometry

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:33 pmWell, OBVIOUSLY, if one does NOT have ACTUAL PROOF, then absolutely EVERY thing that one SAYS or CLAIMS is just 'speculation'. Which is ALWAYS just ones OWN so-called "wild-ass guesses".
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:55 pmTalk about being BLINDED by one's OWN BELIEFS.
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:11 pmLOOK, I will SAY this AGAIN, 'I' do NOT end up with so-called 'nothing in the beginning'. Therefore, EITHER 'I' am NOT of that 'we', which leaves 'Me' wondering WHO and/or WHAT does this 'we' word refer to, EXACTLY?
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:19 pmThis is, OBVIOUSLY, just OVER DRAMATISED 'words' in an ATTEMPT to 'try to' "justify" ones' OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:35 pmTalk about PICKING and CHOSING, FIRST, who AND what to BELIEVE and ACCEPT, ONLY.
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:36 pmWhat does 'lol' here mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:52 pmTalk about absolutely, completely AND utterly BLIND, or STUPID, or REALLY just MISS UNDERSTANDING COMPLETELY.
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:53 pmWe now just WAIT for "uwot" to INFORM us of what "lol" MEANS or REFERS TO, to "uwot".
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:22 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:29 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:48 pm On the other hand, that hasn't stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are...God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.

Logically for example.
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:54 pmIf one shows that nothing to something must be possible and there was a beginning then the question of why there is something instead of nothing has no relevance.
On the other hand, what constitutes showing us something like that?

It's not like someone can create a YouTube video for something like this. Or provide us with a mathematical equation that all rational men and women are able to concur establishes whether existence did in fact come into existence out of nothing at all...or was always around. Or that it is possible for something to come from nothing. Or link their "world of words" logical conclusion to unequivocal physical, material, phenomenological evidence.

Or not that I am aware of.
Something and nothing are two viable scenarios for existence. So we can have either. If something exists then it exists but it could not always have existed so we end up with nothing in the beginning. If nothing exists, we show that it must turn into something since something exists.
Well, here we are getting nowhere fast. We are capable of thinking thoughts like this about the fundamental nature of existence, sure. Just as we are capable of thinking up Gods to explain it.

But this is still not the same as demonstrating that what we believe "in our heads" about the universe/existence is in fact true. Simply by insisting that our assessment is "logical".

Back then to the points I note above about the seeming limitations of logic in regard to an ultimate understanding of existence or God or morality.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:29 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:48 pm On the other hand, that hasn't stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are...God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.

Logically for example.
bahman wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:54 pmIf one shows that nothing to something must be possible and there was a beginning then the question of why there is something instead of nothing has no relevance.
On the other hand, what constitutes showing us something like that?
WHATEVER could 'constitue SHOWING that seme thing must be POSSIBLE, this, STILL, in absolutely NO way AT ALL mean that that 'thing' is an ACTUALITY.

For example, it must be POSSIBLE that the sun explodes tomorrow, but this does NOT then imply that the sun WILL explode tomorrow AT ALL.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm It's not like someone can create a YouTube video for something like this.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or provide us with a mathematical equation that all rational men and women are able to concur establishes whether existence did in fact come into existence out of nothing at all...or was always around.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of this, AS WELL?

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or that it is possible for something to come from nothing.
I suggest that one REMAIN OPEN to the idea that it MIGHT BE POSSIBLE for some thing to come from no thing. That is until either they, DISCOVER or LEARN, and UNDERSTAND that in fact that some thing DID come from no thing or that the Universe, or Everything, IS ETERNAL.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or link their "world of words" logical conclusion to unequivocal physical, material, phenomenological evidence.
But 'evidence' does NOT 'prove' ANY thing.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or not that I am aware of.
Now here IS thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things, if the words, 'for now' or 'at the moment' were added on to this.
I DON'T read your POSTS. SO far, going all THE way BACK to either NOTHING or to WHAT on Earth SOMEthing itself IS.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: lolometry

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:06 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:33 pmWell, OBVIOUSLY, if one does NOT have ACTUAL PROOF, then absolutely EVERY thing that one SAYS or CLAIMS is just 'speculation'. Which is ALWAYS just ones OWN so-called "wild-ass guesses".
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:55 pmTalk about being BLINDED by one's OWN BELIEFS.
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:11 pmLOOK, I will SAY this AGAIN, 'I' do NOT end up with so-called 'nothing in the beginning'. Therefore, EITHER 'I' am NOT of that 'we', which leaves 'Me' wondering WHO and/or WHAT does this 'we' word refer to, EXACTLY?
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:19 pmThis is, OBVIOUSLY, just OVER DRAMATISED 'words' in an ATTEMPT to 'try to' "justify" ones' OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:35 pmTalk about PICKING and CHOSING, FIRST, who AND what to BELIEVE and ACCEPT, ONLY.
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:36 pmWhat does 'lol' here mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?
lol
lol
lol
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:52 pmTalk about absolutely, completely AND utterly BLIND, or STUPID, or REALLY just MISS UNDERSTANDING COMPLETELY.
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
The ABSOLUTE IMMATURITY here SPEAKS for ITSELF.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:41 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:22 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:29 pm



On the other hand, what constitutes showing us something like that?

It's not like someone can create a YouTube video for something like this. Or provide us with a mathematical equation that all rational men and women are able to concur establishes whether existence did in fact come into existence out of nothing at all...or was always around. Or that it is possible for something to come from nothing. Or link their "world of words" logical conclusion to unequivocal physical, material, phenomenological evidence.

Or not that I am aware of.
Something and nothing are two viable scenarios for existence. So we can have either. If something exists then it exists but it could not always have existed so we end up with nothing in the beginning. If nothing exists, we show that it must turn into something since something exists.
Well, here we are getting nowhere fast. We are capable of thinking thoughts like this about the fundamental nature of existence, sure. Just as we are capable of thinking up Gods to explain it.

But this is still not the same as demonstrating that what we believe "in our heads" about the universe/existence is in fact true.
ONCE AGAIN, WHEN WILL 'you', adult human beings, LEARN that BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING ANY thing is:

1. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

2. ONLY NEEDED when one does NOT have ACTUAL PROOF.

3. CAUSES one to SEEK OUT CONFIRMATION for their BIASED VIEWS.

4. ONLY PREVENTS and STOPS one from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what thee ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

5. CAUSES CONFLICTS and PREVENTS Truly OPEN and Honest, PEACEFUL, DISCUSSIONS. And,

6. DISTORTS being ABLE TO SEE and UNDERSTAND FULLY and CLEARLY.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:41 pm Simply by insisting that our assessment is "logical".

Back then to the points I note above about the seeming limitations of logic in regard to an ultimate understanding of existence or God or morality.
ALREADY BEEN REPLIED TO.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

lolometry

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:49 pmThe ABSOLUTE IMMATURITY here SPEAKS for ITSELF.
lol
lol
lol
lol
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Nothing to something must be possible

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:48 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:29 pm



On the other hand, what constitutes showing us something like that?
WHATEVER could 'constitue SHOWING that seme thing must be POSSIBLE, this, STILL, in absolutely NO way AT ALL mean that that 'thing' is an ACTUALITY.

For example, it must be POSSIBLE that the sun explodes tomorrow, but this does NOT then imply that the sun WILL explode tomorrow AT ALL.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm It's not like someone can create a YouTube video for something like this.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or provide us with a mathematical equation that all rational men and women are able to concur establishes whether existence did in fact come into existence out of nothing at all...or was always around.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of this, AS WELL?

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or that it is possible for something to come from nothing.
I suggest that one REMAIN OPEN to the idea that it MIGHT BE POSSIBLE for some thing to come from no thing. That is until either they, DISCOVER or LEARN, and UNDERSTAND that in fact that some thing DID come from no thing or that the Universe, or Everything, IS ETERNAL.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or link their "world of words" logical conclusion to unequivocal physical, material, phenomenological evidence.
But 'evidence' does NOT 'prove' ANY thing.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or not that I am aware of.
Now here IS thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things, if the words, 'for now' or 'at the moment' were added on to this.
I DON'T read your POSTS.
I DO NOT CARE. BUT, 'you' DO reply to my posts, which "others" CAN and ARE reading.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:48 pm SO far, going all THE way BACK to either NOTHING or to WHAT on Earth SOMEthing itself IS.
Post Reply