bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Yes.
You can call it God.
I can call 'what' God? What is the 'it' here?
I asked you if there was, to you, 'an agent'. You said, "Yes". So, now 'what', to you, is this 'agent', EXACTLY?
Accepting that there was nothing but God at the beginning, then God creates something out of nothing.
If this is what you accept, then okay.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
I, however, have an argument against God.
What IS 'God', which you, allegedly, have an argument against?
The obviously illogicality and absurdness when saying, There is an 'agent', which some might call 'God', but I have an argument against this 'thing' [agent/God] may not yet be CLEAR to you, but saying that is just pure illogical AND absurd.
I already defined God.
Yes you did. You defined 'God' as the 'agent', which you accept existed and caused the Universe, from nothing by the way, but then you also state that you have an argument against 'God', which is the agent that you also state and insist must exist.
Is there ANY thing here that you would like to correct?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Nothing is initial state as I discussed it in the previous post. Therefore, nothing to something is possible.
LOL
What EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there was some, so called, "initial state of nothing"?
In fact what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there COULD EVEN BE some "initial state of nothing"?
I already provide two arguments in favor of the beginning. I also provide one argument in favor of that there was nothing at the beginning.
LOL Okay.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Nothing is the initial state as I argued in the previous post so there is no need for something to cause it.
LOL
What do you think the word 'argue' actually means?
You have NEVER logically, soundly, nor validly argued any such thing as "Nothing is the initial state".
You just said there was an "initial state of nothing". You have to say and state this because you BELIEVE "nothing to something" is not just possible but what actually happened. This is because you BELIEVE that there was 'a beginning'.
See, when and if 'you', human beings, have and hold BELIEFS, then 'you' HAVE TO say and state "things", as though they are actually true, because if you did not, then what you BELIEVE is true would just crumble to pieces.
But, just saying, or stating, "things" does IN NO WAY mean that those "things" are true, right, NOR correct.
A lot of what you have been saying, and stating, here is OBVIOUSLY NOT true, NOT right, and NOT correct.
I already provide an argument for there was nothing in the beginning. It seems to me that you didn't understand theargument. Do you want me to repeat the argument?
YES.
And I also wanted you define what the word 'argue' actually means, to you.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Sort of. Let me change the argument a little
P1) PoC states that an agent is needed for going from one state of affair to another one
Does the causality principle REALLY state this?
Yes, at least we can agree with it in this discussion.
Are you aware that you claim that an 'agent' is needed for going from one state of affair to another state of affair but you also claim that nothing is the initial state so there is no need for something [an agent] to cause it.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
P2) PoC does not apply to nothing
Based on 'what' EXACTLY, besides your OWN BELIEF?
It is based on two facts, 1) There was no God, and 2) There was nothing at the beginning.
Is it a PROVEN FACT that:
There was no God?
There was a beginning? And,
There was nothing at the beginning?
If yes to any or all of these, then what PROOF exists?
Also, IF proof exists, then why has this PROOF not yet been shared with the rest of humanity, in the days of when this is being written?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
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.
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.
That is not true if you pay attention to the argument.
LOL Okay.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
What else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is there is absolutely NO logical relationship in this argument.
What is not logical?
So that I do NOT misconstrue YOUR "argument" in ANY way, and then get accused of being MISTAKEN and MISCONSTRUING YOUR "argument" I will allow you to write YOUR "argument" in the most SIMPLEST form, AND THEN I will REVEAL and SHOW 'what is NOT logical' in that, so called, "argument", of YOURS.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
Also, and by the way, the VERY FIRST QUESTION I asked you in this post was;
So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?
You answered;
Yes. Which can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED above.
Therefore, your CONTRADICTION now is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
To say that to transfer, or transform, from 'one state of affair' [the, so called, "first state of the affair of nothing"] to the next state of affair', [which you call, "the second state of affair of something] an "agent" is needed, but then, for you, to go on and conclude, and state, that there is NO need for an "agent", [whatever you want to call 'it'] is just to BLATANT a CONTRADICTION that I should NOT 'have to' point this out to you. Or, am I MISSING some thing here?
If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY is that?
By the way, of course If there was 'absolutely nothing', then any 'principle of causality' would not apply to 'it',
absolutely nothing, but then, there would also be NO 'principle of causality' anyway. But none of this has any bearing on the fact that some 'thing' is needed to transfer, or transform, from 'nothing' to 'something'.
You are mixing things. Nothing is not something.
And 'apple' is ALSO not 'orange'. But so what?
I am NOT "mixing things" here. I am only COPYING what you are saying and writing. I even asked you, am I MISSING some thing here? You did NOT clarify.
If, as you claim, an agent is needed to go from one state of affair [nothing] to another state of affair [something], then an agent is needed to go from nothing to something. So, what do you propose I am actually "mixing up"?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
That is the whole point. PoC applies to something not nothing.
But how did we get from nothing to something?
It is an OBVIOUS FACT that 'causality', cause and effect, could NOT apply to 'nothing'. By definition 'nothing' speaks for itself. But what you have said here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what else you have said, which you claim are "arguments".
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Good to here that.
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.
Yes, for when the state of affair refers to something rather than nothing.
Great. We are getting somewhere. Now, how did we arrive to be living in 'some thing', which you propose and claim came from 'no thing'.
How, EXACTLY, did 'something' (one state of affair) come about from 'nothing' (a previous state of affair)?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
I have to show two things in here: A) An agent, so-called, God cannot bring something out of nothing, and B) There was nothing in the beginning.
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?
If we accept these two facts then nothing to something is possible. This is kind of obvious.
LOL This is what you are saying here, and PLEASE correct me if I am WRONG. You are saying here that if we accept that God cannot bring something out of nothing and that there was nothing in the beginning, which just means that if we accept that there was a beginning and before this there was nothing, then nothing to something is possible. Which is kind of the MOST STUPIDEST thing to say.
If there was nothing BEFORE something, then nothing TO something is possible. Considering the fact that NO one would claim that there is not something, then nothing TO something is not just possible but an IRREFUTABLE FACT. THAT IS; IF we were to accept the MOST ILLOGICAL CLAIM that there was 'a beginning' [of something].
And what is also just as OBVIOUS are your BELIEFS, which are;
There was a beginning.
There was nothing before something.
There is no God.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
A: Let assume that it is possible.
But WHY 'assume' ANY thing here?
WHY NOT just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead?
You have to be patient with this assumption to see that it leads to a contradiction.
But I can ALREADY SEE the CONTRADICTIONS in YOUR BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
There was however nothing including time but God at the starting point.
What are 'you' proposing this 'God' thing is exactly here?
God is the agent that creates something out of nothing.
I saw this CONTRADICTION, of YOURS, a while ago now. As evidenced AND proven above.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
The process of nothing to something is a ghange. You need time for any change. This means that you need time for the creation of time. This is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, God cannot create something out of nothing.
Do you REALLY BELIEVE that you are saying things in logically reasoned ways here?
Yes. What is wrong with that?
When combined with the rest, then just about EVERY part of 'that', what you are saying here, IS WRONG.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
B: This is shown in the previous post.
This is getting beyond a joke now.
No. For sake of clarity I repeat the argument again: 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.
But this, AGAIN, is NOT 'an argument'. This is just YOU stating YOUR BELIEFS.
The word 'beginning' refers to 'the start' of ...
Now, if we are talking about 'a beginning' in reference to 'the start of something', and 'something' references the WHOLE of Everything, then there could NOT be ANY thing else other than 'nothing'. So, that takes (2) out of the picture, COMPLETELY.
BUT, what actual 'evidence', or preferably actual 'proof', do you have that there was even 'a beginning' to 'something/Everything'?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
We achieved the conclusion in the first case.
PLEASE refrain from using the 'we' word here if including 'me'. Or, I will REVEAL further just how WRONG 'you' REALLY ARE.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
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.
When will you get to the fact that 'a beginning' or 'a starting point' is nothing more than just what YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE?
There is ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUAL PROOF that there was 'a beginning', in the context of 'a beginning', which you are using here.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Actually, there is evidence for this. Pair of electron and positron pop out of nothing all the time. My argument also supports this too.
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.
Remember, what APPEARS to be the case may not actually be the case.
But the universe cannot be the cause of the creation of something when it violates the law of conservation energy.
How EXACTLY, to you, does that violate the human being conceived "law of conservation energy"?
If you do NOT elaborate on NOR explain this, then the rest of what you say will be moot.
I will ask again; How could a pair of electron and positron pop out of nothing, if there already exists something?
And do NOT forget; There ALREADY exists something
.
So, how could there be 'nothing', for some 'thing' like a pair of electron/positron, or ANY thing else, to 'pop out' of?
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Our experience is classical and does not apply to the quantum regime and also the beginning.
Speak for 'you' ONLY.
MY experience is of ALL, and NOT just of SOME.
The, so called, "classical" AND "quantum" are actually intertwined and consistent, with absolutely NO contradiction between them at all.
True. But you cannot see quantum fluctuation in the classical regime. That is what I am trying to say.[/quote]
You CAN, when you LOOK AT EVERY thing, on the WHOLE, and NOT just LOOK AT SOME things, in DIFFERENT regimes.
Because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, this is WHY you say you can NOT SEE some things.
'My experience' is NOT what you say 'our experience' IS. And this is WHY I can SEE things where and when you can NOT.
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
I hope that things are clear by now.
What is ACTUALLY CLEAR, to me, is obviously NOT YET CLEAR, to you.
How about now?[/quote]
LOL
What is CLEAR, to me, is just how much you contradict and just how ABSURD YOUR BELIEFS and CLAIMS ACTUALLY ARE.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Regress 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.
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.
If you can NOT find the end, and the resolution, of the chain of things, then I suggest LOOKING AT these things in another way, or from another perspective.
By the way, the KEY to unlocking ALL of the, so called, "mysteries of Life" will also ALLOW 'you' to SEE, CLEARLY, what IS thee Creator, and thus thee Cause, of ALL-OF-THIS.
Learning how to find that missing link, which exists in YOUR "endless chain", will provide 'you' with thee Answer to how to prevent the "chain" from becoming "endless".
No. You don't understand my argument.
What will become CLEAR, soon enough, is that 'I' understand YOUR, so called, "argument" FAR MORE than you could even imagine, in the days of when you wrote this.
YOUR, so called, "argument" fell to pieces BEFORE you even 'tried to' write it.
This is because YOUR whole, so called, "argument" is based solely on those pre-existing BELIEFS, which are completely and utterly unsubstantiated.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Well, if there was always something in the past then there is no way to reach from now to the ultimate past
Do you have ANY proof for this claim.
I will suggest to you that there IS always something in the past, and that reaching the, so called, 'ultimate past' (or Answer) is REALLY a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, which, by the way, has ALREADY been done.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
so it is impossible to reach from the ultimate past to now too.
LOL
If only you already KNEW what the, so called, 'ultimate past' IS, then, you too, would SEE just how funny this REALLY IS.
Can you reach infinity by counting?
Could 'you', the human being, reach ANY thing, which would take longer than how long the body 'lives' for?
Thee Answer should be ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS.
So, if you could "reach infinity by counting" or not should be so obvious to not even be put into question. But, then again, 'you', "bahman", do not yet actually KNOW what the 'ultimate past' ACTUALLY IS.
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
That is way the regress is not acceptable.
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.
By definition you LOOK AT, SEE, and USE that word as an 'impossibility', therefore, to you, that word, and the meaning that you give to it, HAS TO BE 'unacceptable'.
No, I argued against it.[/quote]
WHY do you MISUNDERSTAND me, so much and so often?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
I hope that things are clear now.
MUCH CLEARER to the readers now, thanks.
YOUR VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS are so ill-gotten, so distorted, and so misinformed, that this is the reason WHY 'you' BELIEVE what you do here.
Hmmm.
Okay.