bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Depends on where and when you are. Depends on what is available. Etc.
Without examples, then you just sound like you are 'trying to' DEFLECT.
Are you at all ABLE TO provide an example of where a tree is NOT necessary FIRST for fruit to be bared, depending on WHERE and WHEN 'you' are or 'i' am?
Are you at all ABLE TO explain WHY 'what is available' would depend on the FACT that a tree is NEEDED FIRST BEFORE fruit could come into existence?
It depends if you are on earth on the right time and place for example.
But what has causation got to do with 'me', personally?
Are you now 'trying to' suggest that causation is NOT possible without little old 'me'?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
This is a long debate.
Well I can FINISH 'that debate' ONCE and for ALL.
Cool.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
I have to prove two things:
I do NOT care how many 'things' you BELIEVE that you HAVE TO PROVE. I suggest just 'doing it'. I will AGAIN suggest to you that if you want to make a CLAIM, then it is BEST that you are able to back up and support that CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF FIRST.
Ok.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
When you say, "God", what do you mean, what are you referring to, how do you define that word, and what do you identify that word with, EXACTLY?
By God I mean the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning.
Here is ANOTHER ABSURD CONTRADICTION of YOURS, "bahman". You are SO BLIND that saying "God created everything from nothing" is in itself a 'self-contradiction'.
To you, there is, supposedly, some 'thing', which you call/label 'God', which would OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO BE 'here/there' BEFORE everything else, but which you also CLAIM created everything from nothing. OBVIOUSLY there could NOT be 'nothing' if there is ALREADY this 'God' thingy, existing.
Also, adding the words, "in the beginning", is what ACTUALLY leads human beings like 'you' and the ones who are labeled/called 'religious' and 'scientific' to ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there was EVEN 'a beginning' (to begin with).
The words, "in the beginning", have been MISINTERPRETED for so long now that some of 'you', human beings, in the days of when this was written, STILL ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there was EVEN 'a beginning' to Everything.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
When you say, "There was a beginning", what are you referring to, what was there 'a beginning' of, EXACTLY?
The point that there was nothing before.[/quote]
And, 'what', PRECISELY, are you basing this CLAIM, ASSUMPTION, and BELIEF on, EXACTLY?
Saying, "there was a point where there was nothing before", is as ILLOGICAL, UNSOUND, and as INVALID a statement as there could be.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that even suggests that this could even be A POSSIBILITY, let alone AN ACTUALITY. Whereas, EVERY 'thing' else points to the FACT that the ACTUAL OPPOSITE is thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
Also, I have PROVED what thee ACTUAL Truth IS ALREADY. This is done by YOUR INABILITY to answer MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you above here.
I cleared those definition up.
NO YOU HAVE NOT. What you are ASSUMING I was talking about here is WRONG and INCORRECT.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Now the proofs:
1) There is no God: There are two states of affair in act of the creation, nothing then something respectively.
This is False, Wrong, Incorrect, and NOT YET PROVEN AT ALL.
But as can be ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED, and ALREADY PROVEN True, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing that is/was created came from at least two things prior. So, in the act of creation, there was, and IS, at least two things, then something 'new', respectively.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
One state of affair follows another one.
OBVIOUSLY one state of affair follows another one. This goes WITHOUT SAYING. But, saying that 'nothing' is one state and so that means that another state of "something" follows is NOTHING MORE than just YOUR BELIEF ALONE, which is based on absolutely NOTHING of ANY substance AT ALL.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
This act requires time.
If by 'time' here you just mean and are referring to 'duration', itself, then OBVIOUSLY one state following another state requires duration. This goes WITHOUT SAYING ALSO.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Time is a part of the creation itself.
If, and when, 'you' 'try to' define 'time' here, then what WILL BE SEEN is you just falling into your downward spiral and trap of CONTRADICTION again. Anyway, a part of 'Creation', Itself, OBVIOUSLY includes 'change', which necessarily involves duration. But, this ALSO just goes WITHOUT 'needing' to be SAID.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Therefore, the act of creation is impossible since this (the act requires time and time is a part of creation) leads to regress.
Your ATTEMPTS at just adding the word 'regress' and using it as though that PROVES what you are saying is correct, is just MORE DISTORTED and DELUSIONAL THINKING.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
2) There was a begining. There are two proofs in here:
A) Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually.
And you are BASING this IRREFUTABLE and ABSOLUTE Truth on 'what', EXACTLY?
What you have previously experienced, or, on what you have read in a book?
Have you FORGOTTEN that we are talking about thee Universe, Itself?
Also, you are just RE-REPEATING the SAME THINGS here WITHOUT EVER considering what I have been SAYING and WRITING here.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.
The absurdness and ridiculousness of this, so called, "logic" speaks for itself.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
B) There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.
The ILLOGICAL absurdness and ridiculousness CONTINUES.
I have ALSO ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY these two VIEWS are just PLAIN WRONG.
You did NOT respond to what I wrote and EXPLAINED last time.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
That is not correct. Regress is not possible.
This is ANOTHER CLAIM you like to make. YET you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM.
Are you even YET AWARE that I NEED to SEE PROOF FIRST, BEFORE I agree with and accept the CLAIMS made by 'you', human beings.
'you', "bahman", have YET to SHOW ANY PROOF for ANY of YOUR CLAIMS here.
I don't need to prove anything in here. Regress is related to infinity. Infinity cannot be reached by definition. Therefore, the regress is not acceptable.
you are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE. AND, I certainly have NO intention of wanting you to NOT believe what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, here.
You are ABSOLUTELY FREE to do and think ABSOLUTELY ANY way that you WANT TO.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
That is the subject of the previous comment.
If you can PROVE otherwise, then just say YES.
WHY are you making this SO UNNECESSARY HARD and COMPLEX?
Oh, come on. That is not complex.
SO, WHY is it YOU who just does NOT answer my clarifying question Honestly?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Why don't you think and read my whole post before you start writing something and complain.
WHERE did you GET this ASSUMPTION from, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
Of course. There are lots of detail are missing here. For example beginning, decision and experience.
Well WHY are YOU LEAVING these details out for?
I am not leaving any detail aside.
BUT YOU just said, "There are LOTS of DETAILS MISSING here".
If you KNOW this, then it MUST BE 'YOU' who is LEAVING those DETAILS ASIDE, obviously.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
I thought that you missed that part. Everything is alright if you agree that a decision is needed for any causation.
BUT OBVIOUSLY ONLY 'you', human beings, make decisions. AND, just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that causation was happening and occurring BEFORE you human beings evolved and came into existence. SO, this makes YOUR CLAIM here beyond RIDICULOUS.
Minds have existed since the beginning. So there was always a decision before causation.
What were these "mind" thingies existing in and what were they making decisions through and from, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:05 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
I am not talking about humans but minds in here to be clear. Minds have existed since the beginning.
Okay, now we are STARTING to get SOMEWHERE, although it is BACK to WHERE we first began.
So, to 'you', which is sometimes A 'mind' and sometimes A human being WITH a 'mind', there has been these 'mind' thingies, which have, sometimes, been around FOREVER, and, sometimes, been around SINCE THE BEGINNING, correct?
Yes.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
When our discussions are LOOKED BACK OVER, the amount of times 'you', "bahman", CONTRADICT "yourself" is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS to LOOK AT, NOTICE, and OBSERVE.
What contradiction you are talking about.
LOL
LOL
LOL
The ones where YOU state; "you ARE a mind" YET "you HAVE a mind"
The ones where YOU state; "minds have been around FOREVER" YET "minds have only existed SINCE THE BEGINNING".
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
Now, what sort of 'decisions' have these 'mind' thingies been making which MUST OF been BEFORE trees and fruit evolved and came into existence?
Anything depending on what they experienced.
SEE, it is responses like this that PROVES that you Truly are INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting the CLAIMS that you make here.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am
I did my best.
You OBVIOUSLY have NOT.
Your LIES and DECEIT are CRYSTAL CLEAR, well to 'me' anyway.
Off-topic again.
But STILL True.
And, this is, supposedly, ONLY "off-topic" BECAUSE YOU do NOT want to LOOK AT and DISCUSS this.