Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[seeds]

Well, God cannot be older than spacetime. Spacetime has a beginning therefore God is as old as spacetime.

I agree with you, bahman, the Creator of this universe (God) cannot be older than that which we call the "fabric of spacetime" associated with this particular universe.

However, I suggest that you need a different point of view when it comes to the question of what the "fabric of spacetime" might possibly be.

If it is indeed possible that the universe is the literal mind of God,...

(which is something that was proven to me in my alleged "encounter")

...then spacetime is simply part of the living fabric (or substance) that binds the closed dimension of God's personal consciousness (God's mind) together into one cohesive (and finite) whole.

Indeed, our own minds are comprised of their own separate and autonomous dimension of spacetime.

Like I keep saying, our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to this universe.
_______

To me everything in the universe experiences.

How so?

Please explain how everything in the universe "experiences"?

I don't think that we will end up in a parallel universe but become omnipresent.

You still don't seem to understand the theory I am promoting.

We don't end up in a parallel universe.

No, what I am suggesting is that we each have been imbued with the ("seed-like") potential of creating a new universe out of the living fabric of our very own being (just as God has done with this one).
_______

[Age]

Why you don't study the link that I provided? It is your duty to educate yourself. It is not people's duty.

But I did study it.

It shows and proves that you have not yet fully educated "yourself".

Please tell me what heat death is if you understand it.

I asked you to inform us of what spacetime is to you, which you did not, but then you want me to inform you of what something else is.

Is there a reason why I should do what you do not?

[Age]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

On the other hand, "something from something" presents an equally difficult problem, because you have to explain how and why there existed an original something.

I mean, the notion that the original something simply "always existed" is as impossible to fathom as the notion of something from nothing.

Why do you think the notion of 'always existed' is impossible for 'you' to fathom 'seeds", when it is certainly not for 'us'?

Could the words 'original something' being confusing or blocking you somewhat here?

Furthermore, if for some inexplicable reason, absolutely all of the present "somethingness" were to completely vanish from existence leaving only pure and absolute "nothingness," then time could still be imagined as ticking away at some arbitrary rate (in some Platonic sense) from the moment the vanishing took place.

Yes that, and many other things, could have been imagined, back when there were imagining beings, like "yourselves" but obviously that could not actually happen if there was only nothing.

The point is that if time can be imagined as still ticking away in the context of the post-somethingness state of nothingness as it (time) forever moves forward and away from the vanishing point of the somethingness,...

...then why can't it be imagined as having been ticking away in the pre-somethingness context of nothingness?
_______

But it can be imagined, while there are imagining beings existed. But just because some thing can be imagined, this never makes it actually possibly able to happen and occur.

Also and furthermore why can you imagine these things, which could not actually happen and take place, but you find it impossible to imagine, a notion of things just always existing?

It appears, once again, like something is CLOSING you off here somewhat. Could you imagine what that could be?

[Age]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

On the other hand, "something from something" presents an equally difficult problem, because you have to explain how and why there existed an original something.

That original something is caused. Please see my proof of the existence of God here.

So 'now' this one is saying and claiming that spacetime, actually, was caused.

I mean, the notion that the original something simply "always existed" is as impossible to fathom as the notion of something from nothing.

Yes, they are both logically impossible.

So, if they are both logically impossible to you "bahman", what is the third or other options that are logically possible to you?

Furthermore, if for some inexplicable reason, absolutely all of the present "somethingness" were to completely vanish from existence leaving only pure and absolute "nothingness," then time could still be imagined as ticking away at some arbitrary rate (in some Platonic sense) from the moment the vanishing took place.

The point is that if time can be imagined as still ticking away in the context of the post-somethingness state of nothingness as it (time) forever moves forward and away from the vanishing point of the somethingness,...

...then why can't it be imagined as having been ticking away in the pre-somethingness context of nothingness?
_______

Well, if things excluding time suddenly and completely vanish then time still ticking but the current state of affairs is not nothing since time exists.

See just how Truly simple and easy all of 'this' can be, and is, to work out, comprehend, and understand.

The actual and irrefutable Truth of things is far, far easier and simpler to uncover, and know, than just about all of you here actually imagine.

[Age]

On the other hand, "something from something" presents an equally difficult problem, because you have to explain how and why there existed an original something.

That original something is caused. Please see my proof of the existence of God here.

Why in the world do you think I need to see your proof of the existence of God, when God's existence was already proven to me in my "burning bush-like encounter with God" that I thoroughly described in my thread of the same name? - viewtopic.php?t=41452

I mean, the notion that the original something simply "always existed" is as impossible to fathom as the notion of something from nothing.

Yes, they are both logically impossible.

Yet, apparently, one of them must be true.

Which one is it?

And after choosing one or the other, try to describe how it was possible.

And no, simply suggesting that God is the cause of everything, raises the age-old argument of how and why God exists, which evokes the impossible to fathom "always existed" issue, of which you already admitted seems "logically impossible."
_______

'Always existed' only 'seems' 'logically impossible' while one is somewhat CLOSED.

Otherwise 'always existed' is not just theoretically and logically possible and not just empirically and physically possible but is also what actually is.

And, this irrefutable Fact can be very easily and very simply proven, as well as very easily and very simply understood, and comprehended, well by those who are Truly interested in doing so anyway.

[Age]

That original something is caused. Please see my proof of the existence of God here.

Why in the world do you think I need to see your proof of the existence of God, when God's existence was already proven to me in my "burning bush-like encounter with God" that I thoroughly described in my thread of the same name? - viewtopic.php?t=41452

Well, one needs a logical reason for the existence of God.

One does not 'need' a 'logical reason' for the existence of God. As can be clearly seen throughout human history. However, when one is informed of what the God word is referring to, exactly, and how 'that', Itself, actually exists, then one has become aware of a 'logical reason' of how God/that Thing actually does exist.

But why God/that Thing actually exists is another matter, for another time.

All our spiritual experiences could be due to our subconscious minds.

What are these 'subconscious mind things', exactly, which you speak of and talk about here?

So who can tell the truth by just spiritual experience?

What do you mean by 'spiritual experiences', exactly?

Yes, they are both logically impossible.

Yet, apparently, one of them must be true.

Which one is it?

None is true.

So, what is the actual Truth then, exactly?

And after choosing one or the other, try to describe how it was possible.

And no, simply suggesting that God is the cause of everything, raises the age-old argument of how and why God exists, which evokes the impossible to fathom "always existed" issue, of which you already admitted seems "logically impossible."
_______

Well, God cannot be older than spacetime. Spacetime has a beginning therefore God is as old as spacetime.

So, this one 'now' says and claims that 'spacetime' actually does have 'a beginning'.

Whereas before this one was saying and claiming; Please note that spacetime is fundamental so it cannot be created or begin to exist since that leads to an infinite regress.

[Age]

Why in the world do you think I need to see your proof of the existence of God, when God's existence was already proven to me in my "burning bush-like encounter with God" that I thoroughly described in my thread of the same name? - viewtopic.php?t=41452

Well, one needs a logical reason for the existence of God.

So then, you don't think that a direct and "physically tangible" (life changing) encounter with God is a logical reason for one to believe in the existence of God,...

...yet you suggest (as stated in your "God exists" thread) that it is logical to believe in the existence of God because galaxies...

"...have different ages in different parts of space..."

Really, bahman?

Do you honestly believe that the varying ages of galaxies is more logical as a proof for the existence of God than, again, my direct and "physically tangible" encounter with God?

Look, it seems as if we are both (in our own ways) promoting the idea that God does indeed exist, in which case, shouldn't we be supporting each other's efforts in that endeavor?

A Truly GREAT question posed, and asked for clarity, can be seen here.

Which, what also could said and asked here is; Since 'you', "bahman", "seeds", "attofishpi", "lacewing", and "dontaskme", here are all (in your own ways) trying to promote separated ideas of the exact same Thing, sometimes also known by and with the God word, should or could 'you' all not be supporting each other's effort in that endeavor?

All our spiritual experiences could be due to our subconscious minds. So who can tell the truth by just spiritual experience?

Well, other than common sense screaming at us that it is ridiculous to believe that the unthinkable order of the universe is a product of chance,...

...then it would seem that spiritual experiences are about as close as we can get to the truth about God.

But not just through experiences, every one can get to the actual and irrefutable Truth of God through and by just peaceful and OPEN 'arguing/logical reasoning'.

After all the actual irrefutable Truth of things is very easy and very simple to uncover, obtain, gain, understand, and know. That is; once you have learned the how-to of how to do it.

And that's because the material sciences can only measure physical matter and have no way of measuring the ontological status of the "dreamer" of dreams, for example, or that of the ethereal substance from which life, mind, and consciousness are derived.

Yet, apparently, one of them must be true.

Which one is it?

None is true.

No, bahman, the fact that "somethingness" truly exists, it therefore means that one of the following two scenarios must be true...

• 1. Either the somethingness (including God) arose from nothingness.
  ...or...
  2. The somethingness has "always existed."

Again, pick one and explain how it was possible.

Well, obviously, number 1. is both theoretically and empirically impossible. This only leaves number 2. Which, considering the actual Facts here, and that number 2. is both theoretically and empirically possible, then this one would be the better line of inquiry, that is for those of you who do not yet know what the irrefutable Facts are here.

Also, instead of just explaining how number 2. is just possible, if and when one is looking at things here, exactly as they are, then what becomes very clear is that number 2. is the actuality and thus is actually what IS.

But, again, this is for those who are Truly interested in wanting to learn and know more and anew.

Well, God cannot be older than spacetime. Spacetime has a beginning therefore God is as old as spacetime.

I agree with you, bahman, the Creator of this universe (God) cannot be older than that which we call the "fabric of spacetime" associated with this particular universe.

However, I suggest that you need a different point of view when it comes to the question of what the "fabric of spacetime" might possibly be.

If it is indeed possible that the universe is the literal mind of God,...

(which is something that was proven to me in my alleged "encounter")

Well considering that the Universe is made up of visibly seen physical matter, and 'mind' is not, I am not sure about your claim here, if it is possible that the Universe is the, literal, mind of God, and how this could even be correct. But, maybe you might be able to explain how this could be correct?

Anyway, obviously the physical Universe, Itself, is not some so-called 'the mind of God', but 'the way' the Universe, Itself, is, or at least a part of 'the way' the Universe is, literally, could be because of God/Mind.

..then spacetime is simply part of the living fabric (or substance) that binds the closed dimension of God's personal consciousness (God's mind) together into one cohesive (and finite) whole.

Indeed, our own minds are comprised of their own separate and autonomous dimension of spacetime.

Like I keep saying, our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to this universe.
_______

And because you keep saying 'this' does doing this make 'this' true and/or right?

[Age]

Well, one needs a logical reason for the existence of God.

So then, you don't think that a direct and "physically tangible" (life changing) encounter with God is a logical reason for one to believe in the existence of God,...

Don't take me wrong. I have had a vast spiritual experience for more than a decade. I still don't find them convincing because I think that all of them could be caused by my subconscious mind. The subconscious mind provides us with all sorts of experiences, including five senses. It knows everything that we have ever experienced. It is much more intelligent than us. All I am saying is that our subconscious mind can cheat us blind by faking things and creating experiences that are mere illusions.

This one here is obviously so confused that it is now saying and claiming that a far more intelligent thing that it is, itself, can be cheating it blind, by faking things and even creating false and illusory experiences.

Have you ever considered why a much more intelligent thing would want to do this to you less intelligent things?

Also, considering that you are less intelligent than 'this thing', which you could actually just be having a false or illusory experience of as existing, then could this mean that what you are actually saying and claiming here could all be completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect?

If no, then why not?

What 'we' can clearly notice and see here is instead of just looking at, and thus seeing only, what actually exists, these people, back then, would prefer to presume what 'could be existing'.

...yet you suggest (as stated in your "God exists" thread) that it is logical to believe in the existence of God because galaxies...

Well, that is proof.

So, "bahman" suggests or argues that because galaxies exist. Therefore, God exists.

Either things popped into existence or God created them.

And this is the God thing, which only came into existence with or at 'the time' spacetime, itself, began to exist right?

By the way, why could there not be another option?

Like, you know, just maybe the very matter, which is what all things are made up of, has 'always existed'?

Why is this out of your 'line of scope' here?

I showed that the first scenario cannot be true so we are left with God as the source of creating the universe.

"bahman", some people are better at 'arguing' for their 'currently' held positions or beliefs than others are, would you agree?

Here is a recap of 'your argument' here "bahman". Please inform where along the scale of 'arguing' 'your argument' here sits. And let us agree on and say; 10 is 'good', while 1 is 'bad'.

P1. Either things popped into existence or God created those things.
P2. Things popping into existence, from nothing, is an impossibility.
C. God is the source of creating the Universe.

(But do not forget that God only 'popped' into existence when spacetime 'popped' into existence, at some time.)

"...have different ages in different parts of space..."

Really, bahman?

Do you honestly believe that the varying ages of galaxies is more logical as a proof for the existence of God than, again, my direct and "physically tangible" encounter with God?

Well, having a strong reason for the existence of God can support our spiritual experiences.

Look, it seems as if we are both (in our own ways) promoting the idea that God does indeed exist, in which case, shouldn't we be supporting each other's efforts in that endeavor?

I would be happy to support what we have in common agreement.

But you will never ever support absolutely anything in which you do not agree with, right "bahman"?

Even if what you do not agree with, is what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exact, correct?

None is true.

No, bahman, the fact that "somethingness" truly exists, it therefore means that one of the following two scenarios must be true...

• 1. Either the somethingness (including God) arose from nothingness.
  ...or...
  2. The somethingness has "always existed."

Again, pick one and explain how it was possible.

Both are wrong. I have shown in OP that (1) is wrong. I also have a syllogism for it as follows:
P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

But this syllogism is not sound and valid. Which means that it is not even worthy of repeating here.

Now, tell 'us' "bahman" why you will not even hear this, let alone accept it and agree with this?

Also, if you say and claim that nothing to something is logically impossible, then why do you also say and claim that God, like spacetime, both came to exist?

Obviously these must have then come from nothing.

(2) however leads to infinite regress. It is also not acceptible because otherwise, we could be in the state of heat death.

1. Why could you being in a state of so-called 'heat death' be so-called 'not acceptable'? Not 'acceptable' to who or what, exactly? And, in regards to what, exactly?

2. I have explained to you, irrefutably, how the Universe 'always existing' does not necessarily have absolutely anything at all whatsoever to do with 'infinite regress'.

3. Do you purposely miss these irrefutable Facts? Or, you really cannot understand them because your pre-existing beliefs or presumptions are just way too strong and fixed here?

4. you obviously have not even tried to discuss these things here, let alone have even tried to actually counter nor refute them. So, either you have completely and utterly missed them, again on purpose or unintentionally, or, you really just do yet not comprehend and understand them.

Well, God cannot be older than spacetime. Spacetime has a beginning therefore God is as old as spacetime.

I agree with you, bahman, the Creator of this universe (God) cannot be older than that which we call the "fabric of spacetime" associated with this particular universe.

However, I suggest that you need a different point of view when it comes to the question of what the "fabric of spacetime" might possibly be.

If it is indeed possible that the universe is the literal mind of God,...

(which is something that was proven to me in my alleged "encounter")

...then spacetime is simply part of the living fabric (or substance) that binds the closed dimension of God's personal consciousness (God's mind) together into one cohesive (and finite) whole.

Indeed, our own minds are comprised of their own separate and autonomous dimension of spacetime.

Like I keep saying, our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to this universe.
_______

To me everything in the universe experiences. I don't think that we will end up in a parallel universe but become omnipresent.

How could one individual piece/thing, of the whole, become omnipresent?

Does not 'omnipresent' mean, more or less, 'present all over', to you?

[bahman]

I agree with you, bahman, the Creator of this universe (God) cannot be older than that which we call the "fabric of spacetime" associated with this particular universe.

However, I suggest that you need a different point of view when it comes to the question of what the "fabric of spacetime" might possibly be.

If it is indeed possible that the universe is the literal mind of God,...

(which is something that was proven to me in my alleged "encounter")

...then spacetime is simply part of the living fabric (or substance) that binds the closed dimension of God's personal consciousness (God's mind) together into one cohesive (and finite) whole.

Indeed, our own minds are comprised of their own separate and autonomous dimension of spacetime.

Like I keep saying, our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to this universe.
_______

To me everything in the universe experiences.

How so?

Please explain how everything in the universe "experiences"?

Well, I have to provide you with the argument for the mind which is based on the fact that change exists. Well, the idea is that any change needs the mind to occur, and to do the change mind has to have the ability to experience and cause. Therefore, there is an experience in any location that there is a change.

I don't think that we will end up in a parallel universe but become omnipresent.

You still don't seem to understand the theory I am promoting.

We don't end up in a parallel universe.

No, what I am suggesting is that we each have been imbued with the ("seed-like") potential of creating a new universe out of the living fabric of our very own being (just as God has done with this one).
_______

I am familiar with your theory.

[bahman]

But I did study it.

It shows and proves that you have not yet fully educated "yourself".

Please tell me what heat death is if you understand it.

I asked you to inform us of what spacetime is to you, which you did not, but then you want me to inform you of what something else is.

Is there a reason why I should do what you do not?

No, we were not discussing spacetime but about the universe that cannot have existed in the eternal past. I argue that we could be in the heat death state if the universe existed in the eternal past. You asked about what heat death is and I explained. Now, please tell me what heat death is if you read and understand it.

[Skepdick]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

Tell that to the Mathematicians...

The successor to nothing is 1.

[bahman]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

Tell that to the Mathematicians...

The successor to nothing is 1.

What do you mean?

[Skepdick]

To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

Tell that to the Mathematicians...

The successor to nothing is 1.

What do you mean?

What I mean is precisely what I said.

There exists the successor function. When applied to Nothing (0) it gives you Something (1)

[bahman]

Tell that to the Mathematicians...

The successor to nothing is 1.

What do you mean?

What I mean is precisely what I said.

There exists the successor function. When applied to Nothing (0) it gives you Something (1)

Oh, you are not making any sense! Do you?

[Skepdick]

What do you mean?

What I mean is precisely what I said.

There exists the successor function. When applied to Nothing (0) it gives you Something (1)

Oh, you are not making any sense! Do you?

What's confusing you here?

0 is nothing.
1 is something.

The successor to nothing is something: succ(0) = 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_function

Do you want it in English?

??? -> NO eggs (no-thing)
-> 1 egg (some-thing)