Nothing to something must be possible

[Dontaskme]

Dont forget, these concepts known as hell or heaven are the duality of knowledge. Conceptual Knowledge is only pointing to the illusory dream of separation which appears, as apparently real.

Hell and heaven belong to duality.

However, they are not concepts but real places, available here and now.
They are places of the soul.

The "truth" of hell surpasses any other possible truth accessible in duality.
Hell is in fact the possible breaking point of the dream of duality.

But if you indulge in Nihilism you don't go to hell.
And so one remains imprisoned in duality

Yes, hell and heaven are real places, but can only be known as and through their conception, which is a real experience, I agree. Just as the taste of an orange is known in it's conception, that taste is a real experience. But to be able to verbalise the experience you need to conceptualise what you are experiencing...that's what I mean by knowing concepts.

So I agree with you.

[bahman]

What if one claims that there was a knower, so-called God, in the beginning?

A God would be an object of knowing..the object would first have to exist for it to be possible to be known....so again, the object of knowing can only exist as a concept known within the dream of separation, the realm that is the duality of mental constructions...aka concepts.

God exists in the first place and God knows things. How about this?

[attofishpi]

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?

Each cycle is finite but there are unlimited numbers of them.

Each cycle is only finite by way of terms as to how we consciously perceive the universe. Within that regress will be forms of the universe that would likely not be able to sustain any lifeform, and causality as we understand it by our limited perception may actually no longer exist, indeed chaos returning from whence the universe began, negating the 'infinite' regress issue.

[bahman]

What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?

Each cycle is finite but there are unlimited numbers of them.

Each cycle is only finite by way of terms as to how we consciously perceive the universe. Within that regress will be forms of the universe that would likely not be able to sustain any lifeform, and causality as we understand it by our limited perception may actually no longer exist, indeed chaos returning from whence the universe began, negating the 'infinite' regress issue.

You don't need the existence of life to show that the unlimited number of cycles is a regress. Time has to pass whether there is a life or not.

[attofishpi]

Each cycle is finite but there are unlimited numbers of them.

Each cycle is only finite by way of terms as to how we consciously perceive the universe. Within that regress will be forms of the universe that would likely not be able to sustain any lifeform, and causality as we understand it by our limited perception may actually no longer exist, indeed chaos returning from whence the universe began, negating the 'infinite' regress issue.

You don't need the existence of life to show that the unlimited number of cycles is a regress. Time has to pass whether there is a life or not.

That is not the main point. My question to you was "What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?" - in your post you did not state you were talking about "infinite" regress, just regress...either way, I am satisfied with my answer inferred from my comprehension of reality!

[bahman]

Each cycle is only finite by way of terms as to how we consciously perceive the universe. Within that regress will be forms of the universe that would likely not be able to sustain any lifeform, and causality as we understand it by our limited perception may actually no longer exist, indeed chaos returning from whence the universe began, negating the 'infinite' regress issue.

You don't need the existence of life to show that the unlimited number of cycles is a regress. Time has to pass whether there is a life or not.

That is not the main point. My question to you was "What is wrong with regress in a cyclic universe?" - in your post you did not state you were talking about "infinite" regress, just regress...either way, I am satisfied with my answer inferred from my comprehension of reality!

Things are either finite, reachable, or infinite, unreachable. Regress is unbound so it is beyond any infinity that you can imagine.

[CHNOPS]

bahman, try to understand, sorry.

[Dontaskme]

God exists in the first place and God knows things. How about this?

How about there is only one place ...HERE NOW

And that place is the only place where knowing is sourced.

And that everything is that knowing, one with itself?

And that every concept known is this same one knowing.

So it does not matter what we call KNOWING...call it whatever, some call it God...but one thing is certain, there is knowing.

And that knowing is here now the only place known.

Nothing that can be known here and now can be known to exist outside or beyond this knowing...that's the trick the religious folks try to pull off, but it's just a silly nonsense.

[bahman]

bahman, try to understand, sorry.

Ok, I have no time for your nonsense.

[bahman]

God exists in the first place and God knows things. How about this?

How about there is only one place ...HERE NOW

And that place is the only place where knowing is sourced.

And that everything is that knowing, one with itself?

And that every concept known is this same one knowing.

So it does not matter what we call KNOWING...call it whatever, some call it God...but one thing is certain, there is knowing.

And that knowing is here now the only place known.

Nothing that can be known here and now can be known to exist outside or beyond this knowing...that's the trick the religious folks try to pull off, but it's just a silly nonsense.

If everything is knowing here and now then how you could have a coherent change in knowledge. I mean when the now is gone you are dealing with a new now. New now means new knowings. But what we know now is related to what we know in new now. Is this matter of chance?

[iambiguous]

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!!

I have the right to think that my argument is right unless someone shows a flaw in it.

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?

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?

And, for some here, theology?

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

Does the world of words have any value to you? If not why do you bother with philosophy at all?

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.

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".

[iambiguous]

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.

If one shows that nothing to something must be possible and there was a beginning then the question of why there is something instead of nothing has no relevance.

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.

[bahman]

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!!

I have the right to think that my argument is right unless someone shows a flaw in it.

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.

Cool. So we wait for someone who is able to find a flaw in my argument.

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.

God could not have always existed. That is regress too. God could not create the universe even if God popped into existence.

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.

There 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.

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?

Because we have the ability to think.

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?

Philosophy sits on top of mathematics and science.

And, for some here, theology?

Again, philosophy sits on top of theology too.

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

Does the world of words have any value to you? If not why do you bother with philosophy at all?

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.

I am trying to fill the gaps.

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.

I think that we can use critical thinking to find the truth.

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".

Everything starts with a guess. A guess could be right or wrong. It is through systematic thinking that we can find the trueness of a guess. In the end, we will solve this big puzzle.

[bahman]

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.

If one shows that nothing to something must be possible and there was a beginning then the question of why there is something instead of nothing has no relevance.

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.

Something and nothing are two viable scenarios for existence. So we can have either. If something exists then it exists but it could not always have existed so we end up with nothing in the beginning. If nothing exists, we show that it must turn into something since something exists.

[iambiguous]

The first thing an absolutely perfect being would entail is that he would have to exist, because if he didn't exist, he would be less than perfect. So an absolutely perfect being exists.

Again no disagreement there: a perfection can not entail any thing. , and not because It doesn't exist, but because It is invisible and indivisible.

Okay, in the interim, let's consider the above.

Now, either this absolutely perfect being popped into existence out of nothing at all or He/She/It has always existed.

Okay, how would those who believe one or the other go about demonstrating it beyond a "world of words" in which they just define and deduce and "think" this absolutely perfect being into existence? Or, if you're someone like MagsJ, you fall back on your "intrinsic self" to settle these things.

Then the part that is of particular interest to me...

Reconciling what you construe to be an absolutely perfect being with this:

"...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."