lol
Nothing to something must be possible
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
How 'you', human beings, can determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping ANY information is when 'you' LEARN, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND that ALL information is put into the body through any of the five senses, and CAN BE grasped by the human being.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:11 pm 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!!Indeed, and I really appreciate those like you who create threads like this. Why? Because few things fascinate me more than contemplating how existence itself came to exist at all.
In fact, contemplating this is so utterly mind-boggling, it's still the closest I can now come to God. Him/Her/It being one possible explanation for existence, right? Until, again, you start to wonder if God too popped into existence out of nothing at all or has always existed.
No, what I question here are the limitations of logic in regard to such things as morality and religion and those really big metaphysical questions.
Logic revolves around the rules of language. But human beings themselves...where do they fit into the complete understanding of existence itself? How on Earth can we determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping that?
Therefore, the knowledge of how the Universe IS ACTUALLY eternal, and infinite, is put into the human brain, then the human brain IS capable of grasping that information, and knowledge.
I will, AGAIN, suggest that INSTEAD of thinking, ASSUMING, or BELIEVING some thing is logically true, one finds out what IS IRREFUTABLY thee ACTUALLY Truth, FIRST.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm
Webster's dictionary: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning"
A priori and a posteriori, how would we go about validating what we think is logically true here?
That way one could then ACTUALLY STAND BEHIND, and BACK UP and SUPPORT, what they SAY and CLAIM.
WHY does this 'interest' you so much?iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm
Again, empirically, materially, phenomenologically.
Mathematics, science, and philosophy all intertwined in the definitive explanation?
And, for some here, theology?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pm A world of words. Words defining and defending other words. Metaphysically as it wereBecause my main interest in philosophy revolves around how others close the gap between what they think is true "in their head" about things like morality and religion and the Big Questions and what they can demonstrate using the tools of philosophy -- the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method -- all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women.
This is just what 'you', adult human beings, have been doing for millennia, up to when this was being written. That is; thinking or BELIEVING some things are true, and then saying just about ANY thing in an attempt to 'try to' just defend those positions or BELIEFS.
Well, OBVIOUSLY, if one does NOT have ACTUAL PROOF, then absolutely EVERY thing that one SAYS or CLAIMS is just 'speculation'. Which is ALWAYS just ones OWN so-called "wild-ass guesses".iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm If all one is interested in is noting a "flaw" in the language used to explain something, then the exchange can go on and on and on up in the didactic clouds that revolve around definitions and deductions.
But how is that connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?
Though I'm the first to admit that my own speculations here seem able to be nothing more than my own "wild-ass guess".
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
WHATEVER could 'constitue SHOWING that seme thing must be POSSIBLE, this, STILL, in absolutely NO way AT ALL mean that that 'thing' is an ACTUALITY.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:29 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:48 pm On the other hand, that hasn't stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are...God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.
Logically for example.On the other hand, what constitutes showing us something like that?
For example, it must be POSSIBLE that the sun explodes tomorrow, but this does NOT then imply that the sun WILL explode tomorrow AT ALL.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm It's not like someone can create a YouTube video for something like this.
Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of this, AS WELL?iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or provide us with a mathematical equation that all rational men and women are able to concur establishes whether existence did in fact come into existence out of nothing at all...or was always around.
I suggest that one REMAIN OPEN to the idea that it MIGHT BE POSSIBLE for some thing to come from no thing. That is until either they, DISCOVER or LEARN, and UNDERSTAND that in fact that some thing DID come from no thing or that the Universe, or Everything, IS ETERNAL.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or that it is possible for something to come from nothing.
But 'evidence' does NOT 'prove' ANY thing.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Or link their "world of words" logical conclusion to unequivocal physical, material, phenomenological evidence.
Now here IS thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things, if the words, 'for now' or 'at the moment' were added on to this.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
ALREADY FOUND, and ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pmCool. So we wait for someone who is able to find a flaw in my argument.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:11 pm 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!!Indeed, and I really appreciate those like you who create threads like this. Why? Because few things fascinate me more than contemplating how existence itself came to exist at all.
But you are TO DEAF and TO BLIND to SEE and HEAR 'it'.
Once again 'you' CONTRADICT "your" OWN 'self' "bahman".bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pmGod could not have always existed. That is regress too. God could not create the universe even if God popped into existence.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm In fact, contemplating this is so utterly mind-boggling, it's still the closest I can now come to God. Him/Her/It being one possible explanation for existence, right? Until, again, you start to wonder if God too popped into existence out of nothing at all or has always existed.
Also, just SAYING things like; "That is regress too", does NOT mean ANY thing, and it CERTAINLY does NOT mean that 'it' is IMPOSSIBLE just because you WRITE and SAY; "That is regress".
This could be VERY EASILY REFUTED.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pmThere is no limitation in logic. All sorts of knowledge are built on logic. Life in general and especially intelligent life is not possible without logic.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm No, what I question here are the limitations of logic in regard to such things as morality and religion and those really big metaphysical questions.
WHO or WHAT is the 'we' here, which 'you' CLAIM here have 'the ability to think'?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pmBecause we have the ability to think.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Logic revolves around the rules of language. But human beings themselves...where do they fit into the complete understanding of existence itself? How on Earth can we determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping that?
LOLbahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pmPhilosophy sits on top of mathematics and science.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Webster's dictionary: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning"
A priori and a posteriori, how would we go about validating what we think is logically true here? Again, empirically, materially, phenomenologically.
Mathematics, science, and philosophy all intertwined in the definitive explanation?
'Try' telling that to a so-called "mathematician" or "scientist". They regard their fields to be ABOVE other fields like 'religion' or the one Wrongly labelled "philosophy".
For ACTUAL PROOF of this just ask them.
Talk about being BLINDED by one's OWN BELIEFS.
What does the 'critical thinking', within that head, arrive at in relation to what is 'truth', EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pmI am trying to fill the gaps.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pm A world of words. Words defining and defending other words. Metaphysically as it wereBecause my main interest in philosophy revolves around how others close the gap between what they think is true "in their head" about things like morality and religion and the Big Questions and what they can demonstrate using the tools of philosophy -- the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method -- all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women.
I think that we can use critical thinking to find the truth.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm If all one is interested in is noting a "flaw" in the language used to explain something, then the exchange can go on and on and on up in the didactic clouds that revolve around definitions and deductions.
Did the Universe start with 'a guess'?bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pmEverything starts with a guess.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm But how is that connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?
Though I'm the first to admit that my own speculations here seem able to be nothing more than my own "wild-ass guess".
If no, then NOT Everything starts with a guess like you just CLAIMED It does.
But if yes, then are you absolutely SURE that absolutely EVERY thing starts with a guess?
OF COURSE. But i will, ONCE AGAIN, ask ANY one here; WHY SAY or CLAIM absolutely ANY thing IS true if you do NOT even YET have the ACTUAL PROOF of 'its' Truthfulness?
LOL
WHY NOT just LOOK AT 'things' EXACTLY HOW they ARE, INSTEAD OF ANY 'guessing' AT ALL?
If and WHEN this is done, then what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, will be SEEN. CRYSTAL CLEAR i will add.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
ACTUALLY, NEITHER alone is 'viable' AT ALL.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:22 pmSomething and nothing are two viable scenarios for existence.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:29 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:48 pm On the other hand, that hasn't stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are...God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.
Logically for example.On the other hand, what constitutes showing us something like that?
It's not like someone can create a YouTube video for something like this. Or provide us with a mathematical equation that all rational men and women are able to concur establishes whether existence did in fact come into existence out of nothing at all...or was always around. Or that it is possible for something to come from nothing. Or link their "world of words" logical conclusion to unequivocal physical, material, phenomenological evidence.
Or not that I am aware of.
And this is BECAUSE of what thee Universe is ACTUALLY made up of, and, BECAUSE of how thee Universe ACTUALLY WORKS, (or behaves).
LOL It is IMPOSSIBLE to have EITHER, ALONE.
But, in saying that, we STILL have NOT YET even begin to have a discussion about the MEANINGS or DEFINITIONS of the words being USED here.
UNTIL that is done FIRST, ONLY then what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth can be LOOKED AT, as well as being SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.
What do you ACTUALLY MEAN by; "IF something exists, then it exists"?
Is there a human being here that does NOT agree with and accept that 'something' exists?
WHY, EXACTLY, could 'something' NOT have ALWAYS existed?
LOOK, I will SAY this AGAIN, 'I' do NOT end up with so-called 'nothing in the beginning'. Therefore, EITHER 'I' am NOT of that 'we', which leaves 'Me' wondering WHO and/or WHAT does this 'we' word refer to, EXACTLY?
So, THIS TIME, would 'you' like to TELL 'us' WHO and/or WHAT this 'we' IS, EXACTLY, that "end up with nothing in the beginning"?
If no, then WHY NOT?
Even this so-called "logic" is ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL.
How MANY TIMES are you going to 'trip up' on your OWN ILLOGICAL FALLACIES 'trying to' PROVE that what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE is true is true?
No 'thing' AlREADY EXISTS, and ALWAYS HAS and ALWAYS WILL.
Also, BECAUSE some 'thing' exists this does NOT MEAN, and thus it does NOT logically follow, that NO 'thing' MUST turn into some 'thing' AT ALL
This is just a fine example of YOUR BELIEF 'trying to' MAKE UP just about absolutely ANY 'thing' in an ATTEMPT to PROVE what is ALREADY BELIEVED to be true, right, AND correct.
What can be CLEALY SEEN here is the BELIEF-system 'trying to' LOOK FOR and FIND just about ANY 'thing' that 'it' can to "confirm" what 'it' is ALREADY BIASED to.
Re: Nothing to something must be possible
OK.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:39 pmAgain:
If all one is interested in is noting a "flaw" in the language used to explain something, then the exchange can go on and on and on up in the didactic clouds that revolve around definitions and deductions.
But how is that connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm In fact, contemplating this is so utterly mind-boggling, it's still the closest I can now come to God. Him/Her/It being one possible explanation for existence, right? Until, again, you start to wonder if God too popped into existence out of nothing at all or has always existed.I don't doubt that "in your head" the logic of this is impeccable. But, again, I'll wait for the folks in the scientific community to get around to documenting it one way or the other on Nova or on the Science Channel.
Here for example: https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how ... ks-science
Or here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres ... nology/all
I don't understand why you bring in the issue of morality and religion? These are off-topic.;iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm No, what I question here are the limitations of logic in regard to such things as morality and religion and those really big metaphysical questions.Indeed, in regard to physics and chemistry and geology and biology and and many other scientific disciplines, the precise relationship between words and worlds is astounding. Try getting astronauts on the moon or performing heart transplants or creating smart phones without it.
Instead, I focus more on the relationship between words and world in regard to things like morality and religion and the really, really big questions.
There we find any number of conflicting assumptions. And conflicting conclusions.
Right?
Only, sure, the objectivists among us refuse to accept that. They insist that how they think about these things is how all rational men and women are obligated to think about them in turn. Why? Because they provide us with arguments -- worlds of words -- up in the stratosphere of didactic intellectual exchanges in order to...to prove it.
Yes.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Logic revolves around the rules of language. But human beings themselves...where do they fit into the complete understanding of existence itself? How on Earth can we determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping that?No, in my view, just because brain matter has acquired the ability to think -- given free will of course -- doesn't necessarily establish that thinking brains have the capacity to grasp how existence itself came into existence. Well, other than by way of arguing a conclusion into existence by arguing -- in a world of words -- that only your own premises count in establishing that.
That is what you are doing here, right?
I think we can solve the puzzle.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm Webster's dictionary: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning"
A priori and a posteriori, how would we go about validating what we think is logically true here? Again, empirically, materially, phenomenologically.
Mathematics, science, and philosophy all intertwined in the definitive explanation?Well, that settles that then.
Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around how others close the gap between what they think is true "in their head" about things like morality and religion and the Big Questions and what they can demonstrate using the tools of philosophy -- the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method -- all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women.And I'm all for anyone attempting to do that. Instead, the "flaw" in your conclusion is, in my view, the point I raise above about the limitations of logic that far out on the metaphysical limb.
Thus...
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 4:13 pm But how is [your logic] connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?
Though I'm the first to admit that my own speculations here seem able to be nothing more than my own "wild-ass guess".More rather than less educated guesses always work for me.
I just doubt that the puzzle that is existence itself will be solved in our lifetimes.
Then the part where you have managed to think yourself into believing that the existence of "I" transcends death itself or, instead, that's it's oblivion...then all the way back to "star stuff".