Nothing to something must be possible
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
We STILL WAIT, PATIENTLY.
lolometry
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
lol
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Thanks for HIGHLIGHTING my STATEMENTS and QUESTIONS and PRESENTING them in and EASIER TO READ format, "uwot".
'you' are REALLY getting MY POINTS ACROSS BETTER.
'you' are REALLY getting MY POINTS ACROSS BETTER.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7630
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm 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.
On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality. This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
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".
And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.
And, if you do solve it, I'll see you on Nova.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
AND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm 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.On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?
Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality.
What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
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".And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.
And, if you do, I'll see you on Nova.
ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7630
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
His/her first post:Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:33 pmAND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm 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.On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality.
What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
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".And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.
And, if you do, I'll see you on Nova.
ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
Strictly out of curiosity, how did this "something" become the "something" we encounter from him/her now?Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:26 am Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.
The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.
And [once again] I'm assuming we simply do not know [definitively] whether something came out of nothing at all or was always around.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
I already argued against the act of creation. So the existence of God is out of the question. Morality is a completely different topic.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:41 pmWell, 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.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:22 pmSomething 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.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.
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.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
I already argued against the existence of God. Why are you afraid of the truth? I invite you to read my argument. I am open to helping you if you have difficulty understanding anything.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm 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.On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality. This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Does your, "His/her first post:" comment refer to what the 'puzzle' IS, specifically? (You did respond directly after I posed a question and made a comment).iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pmHis/her first post:Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:33 pmAND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality.
What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pm
This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
And, again, I'm all for those here who attempt to.
And, if you do, I'll see you on Nova.
ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:26 am Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.
The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.
If yes, then the one who wrote the first post here, in this thread, BELIEVES there is NO 'puzzle' here as it BELIEVES that it has ALREADY 'solved' ANY issue here.
If, however, you are referring to what might be saying is my first post, then maybe if you left out my reply to "bahman" here, and left out the CLARIFYING question I posed to "bahman", then we could just concentrate on my words alone.
1. I suggest NOT ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing, as ASSUMPTIONS interfere with how you then LOOK AT, and SEE 'things'.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pm Strictly out of curiosity, how did this "something" become the "something" we encounter from him/her now?
And [once again] I'm assuming we simply do not know [definitively] whether something came out of nothing at all or was always around.
Also, if 'you', and/or SOME "others", simply do NOT YET KNOW (definitively) whether 'something' (whatever that ACTUALLY MEANS) came out of nothing AT ALL or is just ALWAYS around, then there is NO ASSUMING NEEDED. EITHER you KNOW this or you do NOT. And, ONLY you KNOW, definitely.
Now, when you say, "something", are you referring to the Universe, Itself?
If yes, then the Universe is made up of some 'thing', which is usually referred to as 'matter', AND, no 'thing', which is the 'nothing', or the 'space', between and around 'matter'. So, the Universe (the 'something') is, literally, made up of some 'thing' AND no 'thing'.
If the Universe is the 'something' you mention here, and you are SERIOUSLY curious about how the Universe became the Universe 'you' encounter from his/her now, then you WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN what you are talking about and referring to here.
1. Asking, How did the 'something' become 'something'? implies there WAS A BEGINNING. Although VERY SUBTLE this is what is being IMPLIED by those words.
The 'something' [the Universe] NEVER 'became' 'something' [the Universe] as the 'something' [the Universe] was and is ALWAYS 'something' [the Universe].
Also, I have absolutely NO idea what you are meaning or referring to when you say the 'something' [the Universe], which 'you' encounter now, in the days when this is being written, came from him/her?
There appears to be a fair amount of ASSUMING going on here. Which would explain WHY you have NOT YET SEEN what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.
2. If you are REALLY curious and would like to DISCUSS if 'we' can ACTUALLY determine (definitively) if the Universe BEGAN or NOT, then I am more than willing to proceed.
I suggest we FIRST come to an agreement and an acceptance of what 'the something' or 'the Universe' words means, or is referring to, EXACTLY.
THEN we could proceed from there.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7630
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Right, in a "world of words" revolving around circular logic...deductions derived from insisting that only the manner in which you define the meaning of the words in the argument itself count, the "act of creation" bites the dust. And God too.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:47 pmI already argued against the act of creation. So the existence of God is out of the question. Morality is a completely different topic.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:41 pmWell, 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.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:22 pm
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.
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.
As for this part...
Well, let's just agree to disagree.But this is still not the same as demonstrating that what you believe "in your head" about creation and God is in fact true. You simply insist that your assessment is "logical".
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7630
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
You really are just the other side of the Immanuel Can coin here, aren't you?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:52 pmI already argued against the existence of God. Why are you afraid of the truth? I invite you to read my argument. I am open to helping you if you have difficulty understanding anything.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:19 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm 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.On the contrary, some here insist that in order to understand the universe that we live in -- and even existence itself -- God is the explanation.
And, as I noted, my interest in cosmogony, religion and morality revolves first and foremost around what I construe to be the inherent dangers of objectivism...the "my way or the highway" mentality. This and what I see to be the inherent limitations of logic in regards to the existential relationship between words and worlds in a No God world.
Of course: the "argument" becomes everything. And just as empirically, materially, phenomenologically, IC's argument never actually brings us into contact with the Christian God, your argument never actually brings us into contact empirically, materially, phenomenologically with existence itself. You think it into existence "in your head".
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7630
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:37 amDoes your, "His/her first post:" comment refer to what the 'puzzle' IS, specifically? (You did respond directly after I posed a question and made a comment).iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pmHis/her first post:Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:33 pm
AND, was what the God word was referring to, EXACTLY, EVER QUESTIONED?
Or, because some INSIST that the 'God' word could NEVER provide absolutely ANY sort of explanation, they then just DISPUTE and REFUTE that CLAIM WITHOUT absolutely ANY QUERIES being made AT ALL?
Which is EXACTLY what you are PORTRAYING here "iambiguous".
What is the ACTUAL 'puzzle' being referred to here?
ONLY WHEN 'you' people START specifically explaining what 'it' is that 'you' have NOT YET 'solved', ONLY THEN 'we' can SHOW 'you' HOW to solve 'it'.
Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:26 am Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.
The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.
If yes, then the one who wrote the first post here, in this thread, BELIEVES there is NO 'puzzle' here as it BELIEVES that it has ALREADY 'solved' ANY issue here.
If, however, you are referring to what might be saying is my first post, then maybe if you left out my reply to "bahman" here, and left out the CLARIFYING question I posed to "bahman", then we could just concentrate on my words alone.
1. I suggest NOT ASSUMING absolutely ANY thing, as ASSUMPTIONS interfere with how you then LOOK AT, and SEE 'things'.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:07 pm Strictly out of curiosity, how did this "something" become the "something" we encounter from him/her now?
And [once again] I'm assuming we simply do not know [definitively] whether something came out of nothing at all or was always around.
Also, if 'you', and/or SOME "others", simply do NOT YET KNOW (definitively) whether 'something' (whatever that ACTUALLY MEANS) came out of nothing AT ALL or is just ALWAYS around, then there is NO ASSUMING NEEDED. EITHER you KNOW this or you do NOT. And, ONLY you KNOW, definitely.
Now, when you say, "something", are you referring to the Universe, Itself?
If yes, then the Universe is made up of some 'thing', which is usually referred to as 'matter', AND, no 'thing', which is the 'nothing', or the 'space', between and around 'matter'. So, the Universe (the 'something') is, literally, made up of some 'thing' AND no 'thing'.
If the Universe is the 'something' you mention here, and you are SERIOUSLY curious about how the Universe became the Universe 'you' encounter from his/her now, then you WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN what you are talking about and referring to here.
1. Asking, How did the 'something' become 'something'? implies there WAS A BEGINNING. Although VERY SUBTLE this is what is being IMPLIED by those words.
The 'something' [the Universe] NEVER 'became' 'something' [the Universe] as the 'something' [the Universe] was and is ALWAYS 'something' [the Universe].
Also, I have absolutely NO idea what you are meaning or referring to when you say the 'something' [the Universe], which 'you' encounter now, in the days when this is being written, came from him/her?
There appears to be a fair amount of ASSUMING going on here. Which would explain WHY you have NOT YET SEEN what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.
2. If you are REALLY curious and would like to DISCUSS if 'we' can ACTUALLY determine (definitively) if the Universe BEGAN or NOT, then I am more than willing to proceed.
I suggest we FIRST come to an agreement and an acceptance of what 'the something' or 'the Universe' words means, or is referring to, EXACTLY.
THEN we could proceed from there.
Okay, I'll just assume it's a "condition" -- beyond his or her control -- and leave it at that.