bahman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:19 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
The clothed mind has a body.
Great response.
Now, is that just the human body, or the other animal bodies, as well?
And what about ALL of the other bodies in the Universe?
Of course, animals also have minds. Even vegetables. Rocks. Etc.
LOL "Of course".
So, IF animals, vegetables, AND rocks all "have minds", then WHY did you say there are at least two minds? There is at least three here just with your "animals, vegetables, AND rocks, et cetera".
Also, EVERY one of these 'things' is made up of many particles of matter. Does EVERY particle of matter have "its OWN mind"?
Either way, "at the beginning" was there ENOUGH "minds" for EVERY 'thing', which "has a mind", or do these "mind" 'things' just split and/or reproduce for EVERY new 'thing', which comes along and into existence?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:48 pm
Could the body of the 'clothed Mind' just be the universal physical body known as thee Universe, Itself?
See, the deeper one LOOKS INTO this, the MORE of what I have been saying and CLAIMING becomes MORE OBVIOUSLY True.
Omnipresent. I don't think that there are omnipresent beings.
'We' WERE just talking about "minds", so WHY did 'you' just CHANGE here now?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
That is because there was a beginning and the whole is exhaustive so you cannot be exposed to everything.
What has " little old 'me' " got to do with EVERY 'thing' we WERE discussion here just now?
Also, what proof is there that "there was a beginning"? Or, is this just a BELIEF of YOURS, ONLY?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Big-Bang.
And WHAT did this, alleged and so called, "big bang" come from, EXACTLY?
Obviously, if it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for this 'bang' to have come from 'nothing', then it MUST OF come from some 'thing' else.
To me, the, so called, 'big bang' is just the non religious persons 'God', when they are confronted with the CLARIFYING; WHERE did ALL-OF-THIS come from then? question.
See, 'you', human beings will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS. Which in this case IS; "There was a beginning".
See, because 'you', adult human beings, have heard the words, "in the beginning", for so long, some of you actually BELIEVE that there was a beginning, to Everything.
Also, because 'you', adult human beings, literally, tend to anthropomorphize way to much, some of you actually BELIEVE that because 'you' began, therefore Everything else MUST OF as well.
There are physical and minds right now.
And what proof do you have for this? Or, is this just a BELIEF of YOURS?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
There was a moment that there was nothing but minds, the beginning.
Okay. Sounds logically and empirically IMPOSSIBLE. But each to their own.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Minds were bare so they could not cause anything.
So, to you, "minds" can NOT cause ANY thing UNTIL some thing is caused, right?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
There is no God (as I argued in another thread).
So, WHY bring 'It' up then?
Why did you not also say, "There is no Unicorns"?
Have you also argued in another thread that there is NO 'tooth fairy', NO 'unicorns', and NO 'easter bunny'?
If yes, then WHERE?
But if no, then WHY NOT?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Therefore, there was something besides minds after the beginning, so-called physical. Nothing to something is therefore possible as a matter of necessity.
So, now 'you' have CHANGED, AGAIN, and now state that, for some UNKNOWN reason to me, "nothing to something is therefore possible. Yet, nothing to something, to you, IS logically IMPOSSIBLE, correct?
I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest, to 'you', that if you want to CLAIM some 'thing' as being true, then you have at least 'that' what can back up and support YOUR CLAIM BEFORE you make the CLAIM, itself.
As for you stating that, "nothing to something", supposedly, now "being possible", as well as now " being a matter of 'necessity' ", is just ANOTHER one of YOUR ways of 'trying to' "justify" your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS. But, sadly and unfortunately, for you, COMPLETELY CONTRADICT what you have previously said and stated was true.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:24 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
At least two. I don't know how large that number could possibly be. Possibly infinite.
WHY at least 'two'?
It could be me and another person who moves everything else.
LOL So are 'you' now 'trying to' suggest that 'you' and another 'person/human being' exist FOREVER?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Yes. The mind cannot be created or destroyed.
So, WHATEVER number there were BEFORE EVERY thing else just "popped" into existence there is the EXACT SAME number of "minds" right 'now', correct?
No minds don't just pop into existence.
I NEVER said, stated, suggested, alluded to, NOR even thought this. So, WHY did just say what you said here?
Are 'you' AGAIN just 'trying to' DEFLECT?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
It cannot be created or destroyed.
WHY do you use the 'it' word now, when you have CLEARLY STATED that there are at least TWO, which would MEAN 'they'?
Have 'you' heard of a 'freudian slip'?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
It cannot be created therefore there is no process that can allow that minds pop up into existence.
AGAIN, NO one that I KNOW of has said ANY 'thing' about "minds popping up into existence" BEFORE 'you', "bahman".
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
But there HAS TO BE, at least, two "minds", also correct?
No, it could be more.
Do you even KNOW what the term "at least" means or refers to? I even separated that term in between two commas for MORE CLARITY SAKE.
Your "No" response to the ACTUAL question I ask you CONTRADICTS what YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
Also, WHY do you say here that 'the' "mind" cannot be created nor destroyed but also INSIST that there are two "minds"?
I didn't insist that there are two minds.
GREAT OBSERVATION. I apologize PROFUSELY for neglecting to at the term, 'at least', in the above clarifying question posed to you.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
I said that there are at least two minds because I have a justification for the existence of two minds but not more.
Do you REALLY?
And, what is that, so called, "justification" for WHY there are 'two minds', to you, but no more?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
I cannot go through the proof for why the mind cannot be created or destroyed.
WHY NOT?
And, WHY do you, continue, to use the term " 'the' mind " IF there are, AT LEAST, "two minds", to you?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
I can give you the threads that I discussed this topic there.
Please do. Some of 'us', readers, would be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING just how DISTORTED your views ARE, or ARE NOT.
'We' would also be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING if what you say in those threads CONTRADICT and/or CONFLICT with what you are saying here now.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
It would be MORE CORRECT to say, "The "minds" (with an 's') cannot be created nor destroyed, correct?
Of course.
So, IF this is, another, "Of course", then WHY do you NOT do it?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
Obviously there can NOT also be two "minds" and they be the EXACT SAME 'thing'.
Two minds cannot be the same things.
Great. So, HOW, EXACTLY, are they DIFFERENT?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
The mind is an irreducible substance. It is not made of anything. It is the basic.
Sounds, to 'me', like 'you' still have a LONG WAY to go here.
Yes, the story is long in here.
And, the rate at which 'you' are proceeding here the body that 'you' are in will NOT be in a shape NOR in a form for 'you' to EVER come to KNOW the FULL STORY, which is KNOWN by some of 'us', ALREADY.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:45 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
That is another question.
So, what did you say, "No", to and for, EXACTLY?
This "other" question was made in attempt to understand what your "No" response was to, EXACTLY. Is this understood?
Ok.
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:41 pm
Minds exist at the beginning. There is no before beginning by definition.
You OBVIOUSLY MISSED, ONCE AGAIN, what I was trying to CLARIFY.
Now, you say, "minds exist AT the beginning". BUT, if "minds" have ALWAYS existed because they can NOT be created NOR destroyed, then this infers and means that there was NO beginning, correct?
By the way, ALL-OF-THIS can be EXPLAINED FULLY, and PERFECTLY, and much MORE SIMPLY and EASILY than what you are attempting to do here.
But SADLY 'you' and "others" are NOT YET OPEN enough to ANY thing else other than what you and "them" currently ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
Minds have had existed since the beginning. That is the more precise.
Okay, to 'you', at least two "minds" have existed since the beginning.
And the point of INFORMING "others" of this is for 'what', EXACTLY?