Nothing to something must be possible

[bahman]

FFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.

That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.

No. You have not used any logic.


By definition no.
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

So one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?

That is not what I am saying.
That statement implies an "eternal" past which cannot be verifiable.

We don't need to verify it. We just need to imagine it. The question is whether there is a beginning for time or not. Which one do you pick up?

[iambiguous]

I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.

Fair enough.

Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.

Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.

After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.

Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.

As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?

And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?

[Sculptor]

So one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?

That is not what I am saying.
That statement implies an "eternal" past which cannot be verifiable.

We don't need to verify it. We just need to imagine it. The question is whether there is a beginning for time or not. Which one do you pick up?

I IMAGINE that the BigBang so far seems to save the appearances as we know them, but all cosmologies heretofore accepted have become redundant, so that a collection of different paradigms sweep aside old ideas from Aristarchus to Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hoyle etc.. I have no specific reason to be assured that the BB is going to last forever.
It might be that the Universe has been continually expanding, contracting then exploding . Whose knows if the BB expanded into something there that was washed away?

[bahman]

I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.

Fair enough.

Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.

Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.

After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.

Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.

As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?

It could not always be something. That is regress.

And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?

That is the world of logic.

[bahman]

That is not what I am saying.
That statement implies an "eternal" past which cannot be verifiable.

We don't need to verify it. We just need to imagine it. The question is whether there is a beginning for time or not. Which one do you pick up?

I IMAGINE that the BigBang so far seems to save the appearances as we know them, but all cosmologies heretofore accepted have become redundant, so that a collection of different paradigms sweep aside old ideas from Aristarchus to Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hoyle etc.. I have no specific reason to be assured that the BB is going to last forever.
It might be that the Universe has been continually expanding, contracting then exploding . Whose knows if the BB expanded into something there that was washed away?

First, we are not talking about the future. Second, there are three models for the universe, cyclic, eternal, and a universe with a beginning. Cyclic and eternal universes could not be the case since they lead to regress. So we are left by a universe that has a beginning. QED.

[attofishpi]

We don't need to verify it. We just need to imagine it. The question is whether there is a beginning for time or not. Which one do you pick up?

I IMAGINE that the BigBang so far seems to save the appearances as we know them, but all cosmologies heretofore accepted have become redundant, so that a collection of different paradigms sweep aside old ideas from Aristarchus to Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Hoyle etc.. I have no specific reason to be assured that the BB is going to last forever.
It might be that the Universe has been continually expanding, contracting then exploding . Whose knows if the BB expanded into something there that was washed away?

First, we are not talking about the future. Second, there are three models for the universe, cyclic, eternal, and a universe with a beginning. Cyclic and eternal universes could not be the case since they lead to regress. So we are left by a universe that has a beginning. QED.

What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?

[Dontaskme]

Nothing happens.

[Age]

What does it mean?

To who?

And WHY do you NOT ANSWER my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you?

What does infinity mean to you?

Limitless or endless in size or spatially.

To me, time has either a beginning, which means the time duration between the beginning of time and now is finite, or it does not have any beginning, which means the time duration between any point in the infinite past and now is infinite.

[Age]

Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

Maybe not. But, a beginning, and/or ending, Universe can be demonstrated to be False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Or, in other words, REFUTED.

But ONLY to those while they are NOT BELIEVING OTHERWISE.

[Age]

So. If the life on the earth didn't exist then there is no universe! Do you believe that the universe does not exist independent of the human mind?

FFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.

I don't need to witness the beginning.

That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.

It has. As I showed.

No. You have not used any logic.

It is not. Is infinity reachable?

By definition no.
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

So one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?

One 'what', EXACTLY?

One, Universe, CAN and HAS so-called 'REACHED' from the eternal past to the NOW. (But this is just because it is the NOW, which is eternal anyway).

One, human being, for example, however, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT reach from the eternal past to now. But this is just SO OBVIOUS it would NOT be necessary to even mention it.

[Sculptor]

Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

Maybe not. But, a beginning, and/or ending, Universe can be demonstrated to be False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Or, in other words, REFUTED.

But ONLY to those while they are NOT BELIEVING OTHERWISE.

No.
Please show your working.

[Age]

I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.

Fair enough.

Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.

Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.

After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.

Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.

As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?

And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?

Through experiments.

And, in a 'world of words' what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, can be demonstrated.

[Age]

Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

Maybe not. But, a beginning, and/or ending, Universe can be demonstrated to be False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Or, in other words, REFUTED.

But ONLY to those while they are NOT BELIEVING OTHERWISE.

No.

What, EXACTLY, are you saying 'No' to, here?

Please show your working.

Do you BELIEVE that the Universe could NOT be eternal?

[Sculptor]

Maybe not. But, a beginning, and/or ending, Universe can be demonstrated to be False, Wrong, and Incorrect. Or, in other words, REFUTED.

But ONLY to those while they are NOT BELIEVING OTHERWISE.

No.

What, EXACTLY, are you saying 'No' to, here?

Please show your working.

Do you BELIEVE that the Universe could NOT be eternal?

"Belief" is not relevant.
Some people believe in fairies; others in The Donald.
Please show your working.

[iambiguous]

I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.

Fair enough.

Again, however, my reaction revolved more around what I perceive to be the dangers of objectivism from either the philosophical, the scientific, the religious or the ethical and political communities.

Noting in particular the clear limitations of logic in regard to what either can or cannot be known here when it basically revolves words defining and defending other words.

After all, some go from arguing that "nothing to something must be possible" to arguing that this particular something that we live in now must be construed as they construe it to be as well. At least theoretically...metaphysically.

Or, for some, theocratically. Or ideologically. Or deontologically.

As for nothing and something, something certainly seems to be the case. Us for example. But to argue that it came from nothing is not nearly the same as demonstrating that there was once nothing and out of it came something. Why not that there was always something?

It could not always be something. That is regress.

There you go again, merely believing this "in your head"..."logically". Much like those on the other side who believe in their heads logically that there was never not something.

I'll stay tuned for the documentary on NOVA that finally settles it. And, with any luck, in our lifetime!!

And how on Earth would any of us go about demonstrating it one way or the other...except in a world of words?

That is the world of logic.

Oh, indeed. A world of words. Words defining and defending other words. Metaphysically as it were.