Anything which cannot be created cannot be annihilated too

[bahman]

Suppose otherwise: Anything which cannot be created can be annihilated. Suppose such a thing annihilates. The process of annihilation when it is looked at reverse is like creation. This means that following such a process the thing one can be created. We start with the assumption that the thing cannot be created. This is contrary.

[AlexW]

All things that have once been created will - somewhen - be destroyed.
Only what is not a thing cannot be created or destroyed.
What is created and thus can be destroyed is (ultimately) not real.
It follows: Things are ultimately not real.

[Sculptor]

Suppose otherwise: Anything which cannot be created can be annihilated. Suppose such a thing annihilates. The process of annihilation when it is looked at reverse is like creation. This means that following such a process the thing one can be created. We start with the assumption that the thing cannot be created. This is contrary.

I think this takes the biscuit for the most stupid post that you have yet made.

Anything that cannot be created; does not exist.
I cannot be annihilated since it does not exist in the first place.

Are you capable of holding more than one idea in your brain at a time, to think through the consequent notions that more than one idea might imply to another idea?

[attofishpi]

Suppose otherwise: Anything which cannot be created can be annihilated. Suppose such a thing annihilates. The process of annihilation when it is looked at reverse is like creation. This means that following such a process the thing one can be created. We start with the assumption that the thing cannot be created. This is contrary.

I think this takes the biscuit for the most stupid post that you have yet made.

Anything that cannot be created; does not exist.
I cannot be annihilated since it does not exist in the first place.

Are you capable of holding more than one idea in your brain at a time, to think through the consequent notions that more than one idea might imply to another idea?

Chaz?

[bahman]

All things that have once been created will - somewhen - be destroyed.

No.

Only what is not a thing cannot be created or destroyed.

What do you mean?

What is created and thus can be destroyed is (ultimately) not real.

True. You, however, need an argument for that. But here we are talking about another thing.

It follows: Things are ultimately not real.

With the exception of mind.

[bahman]

Suppose otherwise: Anything which cannot be created can be annihilated. Suppose such a thing annihilates. The process of annihilation when it is looked at reverse is like creation. This means that following such a process the thing one can be created. We start with the assumption that the thing cannot be created. This is contrary.

I think this takes the biscuit for the most stupid post that you have yet made.

Anything that cannot be created; does not exist.

The mind cannot be created because it is irreducible. It is irreducible because it can freely decide. One example.

I cannot be annihilated since it does not exist in the first place.

How do you know? Minds have been existing since the beginning.

Are you capable of holding more than one idea in your brain at a time, to think through the consequent notions that more than one idea might imply to another idea?

Can we focus on the argument?

[Sculptor]

Suppose otherwise: Anything which cannot be created can be annihilated. Suppose such a thing annihilates. The process of annihilation when it is looked at reverse is like creation. This means that following such a process the thing one can be created. We start with the assumption that the thing cannot be created. This is contrary.

I think this takes the biscuit for the most stupid post that you have yet made.

Anything that cannot be created; does not exist.

The mind cannot be created because it is irreducible. It is irreducible because it can freely decide. One example.

I cannot be annihilated since it does not exist in the first place.

How do you know? Minds have been existing since the beginning.

Are you capable of holding more than one idea in your brain at a time, to think through the consequent notions that more than one idea might imply to another idea?

Can we focus on the argument?

You have no argument.
All you have is an obviously false premise.
Mind is created and destoryed.
I can destroy your mind with a bic pen.
I can create and mind through sex with a woman.

[AlexW]

AlexW wrote: It follows: Things are ultimately not real.

With the exception of mind.

Yes, in way... but: what you call mind is only real if mind IS reality.
And as reality is unlimited, unborn and unceasing it cannot belong to anyone - it can not be personal - it is unlimited, universal presence/potential.
This furthermore implies that mind (being unlimited) cannot be a thing - as all things are limited, separate, created.
You could say that all separate things are the (illusory) creation of the mind - thus they are part of it, part of reality – but never independent or separate from it.

Also: Stating that mind is the only (real?) thing, is incorrect - because if there is only one "thing", then this "thing" loses its thingness (as there is nothing else to compare it with).

[Dontaskme]

Also: Stating that mind is the only (real?) thing, is incorrect - because if there is only one "thing", then this "thing" loses its thingness (as there is nothing else to compare it with).

I like that!

[Skepdick]

Suppose otherwise: Anything which cannot be created can be annihilated. Suppose such a thing annihilates. The process of annihilation when it is looked at reverse is like creation. This means that following such a process the thing one can be created. We start with the assumption that the thing cannot be created. This is contrary.

That's what conservation laws in physics are.

They follow from Noether's theorem

[bahman]

I think this takes the biscuit for the most stupid post that you have yet made.

Anything that cannot be created; does not exist.

The mind cannot be created because it is irreducible. It is irreducible because it can freely decide. One example.

I cannot be annihilated since it does not exist in the first place.

How do you know? Minds have been existing since the beginning.

Are you capable of holding more than one idea in your brain at a time, to think through the consequent notions that more than one idea might imply to another idea?

Can we focus on the argument?

You have no argument.
All you have is an obviously false premise.
Mind is created and destoryed.
I can destroy your mind with a bic pen.
I can create and mind through sex with a woman.

Mind is attached to matter in all its form. Human body is one form of matter. But there is mind who decides. Therefore, you have human, mind and body. Matter is determistic object and cannot possibly ends up in a state which can freely decide.

[bahman]

AlexW wrote: It follows: Things are ultimately not real.

With the exception of mind.

Yes, in way... but: what you call mind is only real if mind IS reality.
And as reality is unlimited, unborn and unceasing it cannot belong to anyone - it can not be personal - it is unlimited, universal presence/potential.
This furthermore implies that mind (being unlimited) cannot be a thing - as all things are limited, separate, created.

Why? Each person has internal states. Therefore, there are different minds.

You could say that all separate things are the (illusory) creation of the mind - thus they are part of it, part of reality – but never independent or separate from it.

I think we are minds communicating through matter. I agree with what you said.

Also: Stating that mind is the only (real?) thing, is incorrect - because if there is only one "thing", then this "thing" loses its thingness (as there is nothing else to compare it with).

Yes. There is mind and matter. But our subject of discussion is mind not matter.

[bahman]

Suppose otherwise: Anything which cannot be created can be annihilated. Suppose such a thing annihilates. The process of annihilation when it is looked at reverse is like creation. This means that following such a process the thing one can be created. We start with the assumption that the thing cannot be created. This is contrary.

That's what conservation laws in physics are.

They follow from Noether's theorem

I agree with that. But that is about matter. Here I am talking about mind.

[Skepdick]

I agree with that. But that is about matter. Here I am talking about mind.

What's the difference between mind and matter?

[commonsense]

AlexW wrote: It follows: Things are ultimately not real.

With the exception of mind.

Yes, in way... but: what you call mind is only real if mind IS reality.
And as reality is unlimited, unborn and unceasing it cannot belong to anyone - it can not be personal - it is unlimited, universal presence/potential.
This furthermore implies that mind (being unlimited) cannot be a thing - as all things are limited, separate, created.

Why? Each person has internal states. Therefore, there are different minds.

You could say that all separate things are the (illusory) creation of the mind - thus they are part of it, part of reality – but never independent or separate from it.

I think we are minds communicating through matter. I agree with what you said.

Also: Stating that mind is the only (real?) thing, is incorrect - because if there is only one "thing", then this "thing" loses its thingness (as there is nothing else to compare it with).

Yes. There is mind and matter. But our subject of discussion is mind not matter.

If anything doesn’t include matter, then what does anything, which is in the subject line of the thread, mean?