Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[Age]

On the other hand, logic only exists because we exist. And what do the rules of human language...rules that we mere mortals have invented/discovered...have to do with grasping the existence of existence itself? Assuming we are the only intelligent life form in the universe and that "somehow" God or No God we did acquire autonomy, how to even begin to grasp questions like this when for billions of years there were no minds around to ask them?

The existence of existence itself seems to be no less "spooky" than it ever was. In fact, the more astrophysicists discover about the staggering strangeness of things "out there" the "spookier" it becomes.

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself.

But, it only 'appears' this way to some of you, only because you human beings are still evolving towards 'catching up'.

There is absolutely nothing that so-called 'transcends' the 'human condition', itself, because a 'condition' within 'human beings' is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.

Objective Truth is actually found and uncovered by you human beings, from which you then evolve, or transcend, into and up to the next stage of evolution, itself.

My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments.

Will you provide any actual examples?

I ask because I have not yet seen any actual Truth, which conflicts with any actual True 'value judgment'. And, I say and use 'True' to denote not just one's individual personal 'value judgment'.

And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all.

Human beings, in the days when this is being written, who do 'science' are so, so far away from the actual and irrefutable Truth.

Everything, also known as 'the Universe', did not come out of 'nothing at all'. And, to even just presume that It could, will just lead those further astray. As can be clearly seen, hitherto when this is being written.

Now, to prove, irrefutably, that the Universe did not begin, did not come out of nothing at all, and is not expanding is really a very simple and easy thing to do, and to understand, as well.

Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

Every thing that is going to happen is 'deterministic', as can also be shown and proved True.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

All of 'that' as well fits in, perfectly, with the GUTOE, which, by the way, has ended up proving Itself irrefutably, and thus Objectively True, as well.

[Age]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

No, my interpretation is alright. I have proof for the mind. I have proof for it to be changeless. I have proof for it to be omnipresent.

No, bahman, you don't have "proof" of anything whatsoever.

Like the rest of us, you have pure "conjecture."

You need to stop assuming that you are dealing with metaphysical neophytes here who cannot analyze your assertions and see the flaws.
_______

I have the proofs but it seems that you are not interested.

I am.

[Age]

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself. My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments. And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all. Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

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)

Has 'something from absolutely nothing' being logically impossible even been questioned and/or disputed by absolutely any one here?

If no, then you do not need to keep 'arguing' for 'this'.

[bahman]

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

I explained in my former post that I used to believe that there are many minds.

In which, supposed, former post did you, supposedly, explain this?

A long time ago and in many posts.

I however faced a problem with this picture since if each person has several minds and if he moves the mind changes its location and therefore changes. Mind however changeless therefore there must be one omnipresent mind that takes care of changes.

Great to see that you noticed and acknowledge one of your so-called 'problems' here.

Did you also notice how since the thinking or belief has changed within 'that body', then, according to your logic here, then this must have been 'taken care of' by the One Mind?

Yes. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that you were wrong.

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

No, my interpretation is alright. I have proof for the mind. I have proof for it to be changeless. I have proof for it to be omnipresent.

But, let 'us' also not forget that you also said you 'had proof' and 'an argument' for your previous claims about 'minds', also.

Yes.

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)


No, bahman, you don't have "proof" of anything whatsoever.

Like the rest of us, you have pure "conjecture."

You need to stop assuming that you are dealing with metaphysical neophytes here who cannot analyze your assertions and see the flaws.
_______

I have the proofs but it seems that you are not interested.

I am.

The argument for mind, you probably know but I can share it if you don't know. The argument for the mind being omnipresent is here. The argument for the mind being changeless is the following: The mind causes a change in a substance. If the mind changes then it needs another mind. Either the latter mind is changeless or not. If not we face an infinite regress otherwise the later mind is changeless. In reality, the latter mind does the job so there is no need for former minds that are changeable. Therefore with Occam's razor, we keep the latter mind and discard all changable minds. Therefore, the mind (the later mind) is changeless.

[seeds]

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself.

But, it only 'appears' this way to some of you, only because you human beings are still evolving towards 'catching up'.

There is absolutely nothing that so-called 'transcends' the 'human condition', itself, because a 'condition' within 'human beings' is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.

Objective Truth is actually found and uncovered by you human beings, from which you then evolve, or transcend, into and up to the next stage of evolution, itself.

My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments.

Will you provide any actual examples?

I ask because I have not yet seen any actual Truth, which conflicts with any actual True 'value judgment'. And, I say and use 'True' to denote not just one's individual personal 'value judgment'.

And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all.

Human beings, in the days when this is being written, who do 'science' are so, so far away from the actual and irrefutable Truth.

Everything, also known as 'the Universe', did not come out of 'nothing at all'. And, to even just presume that It could, will just lead those further astray. As can be clearly seen, hitherto when this is being written.

Now, to prove, irrefutably, that the Universe did not begin, did not come out of nothing at all, and is not expanding is really a very simple and easy thing to do, and to understand, as well.

Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

Every thing that is going to happen is 'deterministic', as can also be shown and proved True.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

All of 'that' as well fits in, perfectly, with the GUTOE, which, by the way, has ended up proving Itself irrefutably, and thus Objectively True, as well.

Dear channeled entity who calls itself "Age",...

...if you are going to smother a thread beneath the putrid evacuation of your mental bowels, don't you think you should at least attach the correct name to whomever it is you are crapping on?

The quotes you are attributing to me were made by iambiguous.

Hit the edit button and correct your mistakes.

Also, in regard to this,...

Like the rest of us, you have pure "conjecture."

You need to stop assuming that you are dealing with metaphysical neophytes here who cannot analyze your assertions and see the flaws.

Are you aware that you appear to believe that there are no flaws in your assertions here "seeds"?

...anyone with the most minimal ability to comprehend what they are reading would be able to understand that implicit in what is underlined below in that statement I made to bahman...

Like the rest of us, you have pure "conjecture."

...is a clear admission (by me) that my theories could be wrong.

Please, little Age, I know that life is new and exciting for you, and that you are eager to know if the fire engine is red and if the cow goes moo,...

...but you need to allow the adults to talk among themselves without you constantly interrupting them.

Don't you have a Nintendo or some other games to play with?
_______

[commonsense]

Got it.

I am so happy that you got it!

you were joking here right "commonsense"?

Correct

[commonsense]

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself. My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments. And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all. Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

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)

It looks like you are just changing from no time to time—just another way of saying from nothing to something.

So if nothing to something is impossible, then time has no beginning.

[bahman]

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself. My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments. And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all. Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

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)

It looks like you are just changing from no time to time—just another way of saying from nothing to something.

So if nothing to something is impossible, then time has no beginning.

Wrong! I won't repeat the argument though.

[commonsense]

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

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)

It looks like you are just changing from no time to time—just another way of saying from nothing to something.

So if nothing to something is impossible, then time has no beginning.

Wrong! I won't repeat the argument though.

If nothing to something is possible, then time had a beginning at some point.

[bahman]

It looks like you are just changing from no time to time—just another way of saying from nothing to something.

So if nothing to something is impossible, then time has no beginning.

Wrong! I won't repeat the argument though.

If nothing to something is possible, then time had a beginning at some point.

Sure, but as I have said several times that does not mean that it began to exist.

[commonsense]

Wrong! I won't repeat the argument though.

If nothing to something is possible, then time had a beginning at some point.

Sure, but as I have said several times that does not mean that it began to exist.

Yes, you have. You don’t seem to understand what a beginning is.

[bahman]

If nothing to something is possible, then time had a beginning at some point.

Sure, but as I have said several times that does not mean that it began to exist.

Yes, you have. You don’t seem to understand what a beginning is.

I understand what beginning is. Do you understand what being to exist means? If yes, please elaborate.

[commonsense]

Sure, but as I have said several times that does not mean that it began to exist.

Yes, you have. You don’t seem to understand what a beginning is.

I understand what beginning is. Do you understand what being to exist means? If yes, please elaborate.

Beginning is not being then being.

[iambiguous]

That is true that we discover the truth but the truth is objective and it is human independent.

Okay, in regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us, etc., it certainly appears that there are objective truths that transcend the "human condition" itself. My own "beef" with the truth revolves instead around conflicting value judgments. And yet given all that science has discovered about the universe of late, there is still that gap between what it thinks it knows is true objectively and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know for certain regarding such things as whether everything there is came out of nothing at all. Where does human logic fit into that? In fact, we don't even have the capacity to know for certain if human logic itself is not just another inherent component of a wholly determined universe.

And then the part that revolves around God and religion. That may well always be one possible explanation.

I have an argument in the form of syllogism if you are interested:

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)

Again, from my own existential frame of mind, you're still making this all about the argument. Human logic constructing syllogisms such that abstract premises yield abstract conclusions.

Meanwhile the laws of nature have been around billions of years before we mere mortals came along. We don't even know how on Earth -- God or No God -- biological life came to exist at all. Let alone how it's all connected to, say, this...

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa