Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[Sculptor]

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.

Logic has nothing to do with it.
You can call it unreasonable. Of that you do not understand it.
You can claim it does not make sense.
But this is not a logical arguement.

Here's some logic.
Unless everything is forever the same, then there must have been unique events.
Therefore any argument which is based upon the refutation of a unique event relies on a claim that everything is forever in a static state. What Hoyle calls steady state universe.

Since we know that the Universe is in a state of perpetual change (as far as we can see), then the idea that everything is forever the same is false.
This, at least, allows the possiblility of unique and possibly unrepeatable events.

[Age]

Matter cannot have existed since otherwise we should be in death heat right now.

I do not understand what you are saying here, will you elaborate?

It is about the second law of thermodynamics. This law says that the entropy is constantly increasing.

But the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' here only applies to 'things' within the Universe. That so-called 'law' does not apply to the 'Thing', called the Universe, Itself. See, the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' does not apply to the fundamental components of the Universe, Itself, because they cannot be created, nor destroyed.

The ultimate state of the universe is when the energy is distributed equally so no further process is possible as a result of equal distribution of energy, that is heat death.

So, you are here 'now' saying and/or suggesting that, actually, 'energy' can be created, and destroyed, correct?

Also, is the claimed 'equal distribution of energy' throughout all of the whole Universe, Itself, an already proved Fact that 'this' will happen absolutely for sure without absolutely any doubt at all?

Or, is this just another presumption or belief of some of you human beings, only?

Tthe process in the current state is possible as a result of the energy not being distributed equally in space.

So, how and when did this 'current' state begin, exactly?

Time also cannot have existed always since that leads to infinite regress.

But you do not yet know what 'infinite regress' is, exactly. So, how could you know what, supposedly, leads to what you do not yet know?

What do you mean? I know what infinite regress is.

Well you have provided two different definitions so far. So, are you going to provide more?

If yes, then how many, and what are they, exactly?

If no, then why not? And, which one of the two that you have provided so far do 'we' 'have to' agree with, and accept?

Also, let 'us' all not forget that what 'your' own personal definition of the term or phrase 'infinite regress' is here "bahman" absolutely no one has to nor will necessarily agree with and accept anyway.

[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.

Logic has nothing to do with it.
You can call it unreasonable. Of that you do not understand it.
You can claim it does not make sense.
But this is not a logical arguement.

Logic has to do with it. I don't understand what you are trying to say with the rest.

Here's some logic.
Unless everything is forever the same, then there must have been unique events.
Therefore any argument which is based upon the refutation of a unique event relies on a claim that everything is forever in a static state. What Hoyle calls steady state universe.

Since we know that the Universe is in a state of perpetual change (as far as we can see), then the idea that everything is forever the same is false.
This, at least, allows the possiblility of unique and possibly unrepeatable events.

So what?

[Age]

If time has always existed,

But you do not yet know what 'time' is, exactly, "bahman". So, why do you wonder how long 'time' has existed for?

I know what time is but it is off-topic.

So, you want to make your so-called 'arguments' around what 'time' is, or base your so-called 'arguments' on what 'time' is, but find discussing what 'time' is, exactly, here is 'now' off-topic.

then it means that there is always a time before any time that you assume.

But I do not assume 'any time'. Do you assume 'any time'?

If yes, then what could 'assuming any time' even mean, or could be referring to, exactly?

By assuming any time I mean any time that you consider.

Well considering that a 'time' I consider HERE, is NOW, which is eternal, then what you have been claiming has just fallen to pieces and/or by the wayside, as some might say here, NOW.

That is the very definition of infinite regress.

So, to "bahman" 'now', the 'very definition of 'infinite regress' is: 'There is always a time before 'any time' that you, readers, assume'.

Yes.

THe universe always changing but that is not the point. The question is whether the universe has always existed.

So, you agree and accept that the Universe is always changing, right?

If yes, then the answer to the question, 'Whether the Universe has always existed?' (which by the way is not the best written question going), but, anyway, if what you are actually asking is; 'Has the Universe always existed?', then the irrefutable answer is, 'Yes'.

And, before you resort back to some thing about 'infinite regress', (from whichever definition you want to choose, and/or use at any time), the Universe is always in one state, alone. And, IS, eternally-forever.

Sure, but that does not mean that the universe has eternally existed.

But, the Universe, Itself, could not exist in any other way. And, this is irrefutable.

[bahman]

I do not understand what you are saying here, will you elaborate?

It is about the second law of thermodynamics. This law says that the entropy is constantly increasing.

But the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' here only applies to 'things' within the Universe. That so-called 'law' does not apply to the 'Thing', called the Universe, Itself. See, the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' does not apply to the fundamental components of the Universe, Itself, because they cannot be created, nor destroyed.

The laws apply to the things within the universe. The thing within the universe makes the universe.

The ultimate state of the universe is when the energy is distributed equally so no further process is possible as a result of equal distribution of energy, that is heat death.

So, you are here 'now' saying and/or suggesting that, actually, 'energy' can be created, and destroyed, correct?

No, I didn't say that.

Also, is the claimed 'equal distribution of energy' throughout all of the whole Universe, Itself, an already proved Fact that 'this' will happen absolutely for sure without absolutely any doubt at all?

Yes.

Or, is this just another presumption or belief of some of you human beings, only?

No.

The process in the current state is possible as a result of the energy not being distributed equally in space.

So, how and when did this 'current' state begin, exactly?

From the beginning to now and to the future but not very long long time in future.

But you do not yet know what 'infinite regress' is, exactly. So, how could you know what, supposedly, leads to what you do not yet know?

What do you mean? I know what infinite regress is.

Well you have provided two different definitions so far. So, are you going to provide more?

If yes, then how many, and what are they, exactly?

If no, then why not? And, which one of the two that you have provided so far do 'we' 'have to' agree with, and accept?

Also, let 'us' all not forget that what 'your' own personal definition of the term or phrase 'infinite regress' is here "bahman" absolutely no one has to nor will necessarily agree with and accept anyway.

No, I defined one definition so far.

[bahman]

But you do not yet know what 'time' is, exactly, "bahman". So, why do you wonder how long 'time' has existed for?

I know what time is but it is off-topic.

So, you want to make your so-called 'arguments' around what 'time' is, or base your so-called 'arguments' on what 'time' is, but find discussing what 'time' is, exactly, here is 'now' off-topic.

Ok, time is a substance that allows change.

But I do not assume 'any time'. Do you assume 'any time'?

If yes, then what could 'assuming any time' even mean, or could be referring to, exactly?

By assuming any time I mean any time that you consider.

Well considering that a 'time' I consider HERE, is NOW, which is eternal, then what you have been claiming has just fallen to pieces and/or by the wayside, as some might say here, NOW.

Now is a point and it is not eternal.

So, to "bahman" 'now', the 'very definition of 'infinite regress' is: 'There is always a time before 'any time' that you, readers, assume'.

Yes.

So, you agree and accept that the Universe is always changing, right?

If yes, then the answer to the question, 'Whether the Universe has always existed?' (which by the way is not the best written question going), but, anyway, if what you are actually asking is; 'Has the Universe always existed?', then the irrefutable answer is, 'Yes'.

And, before you resort back to some thing about 'infinite regress', (from whichever definition you want to choose, and/or use at any time), the Universe is always in one state, alone. And, IS, eternally-forever.

Sure, but that does not mean that the universe has eternally existed.

But, the Universe, Itself, could not exist in any other way. And, this is irrefutable.

Yes, the universe has a beginning so it didn't exist eternally in the past.

[Sculptor]

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.

Logic has nothing to do with it.
You can call it unreasonable. Of that you do not understand it.
You can claim it does not make sense.
But this is not a logical arguement.

Logic has to do with it. I don't understand what you are trying to say with the rest.

Here's some logic.
Unless everything is forever the same, then there must have been unique events.
Therefore any argument which is based upon the refutation of a unique event relies on a claim that everything is forever in a static state. What Hoyle calls steady state universe.

Since we know that the Universe is in a state of perpetual change (as far as we can see), then the idea that everything is forever the same is false.
This, at least, allows the possiblility of unique and possibly unrepeatable events.

So what?

You did not preent any logical argument

[bahman]

Logic has nothing to do with it.
You can call it unreasonable. Of that you do not understand it.
You can claim it does not make sense.
But this is not a logical arguement.

Logic has to do with it. I don't understand what you are trying to say with the rest.

Here's some logic.
Unless everything is forever the same, then there must have been unique events.
Therefore any argument which is based upon the refutation of a unique event relies on a claim that everything is forever in a static state. What Hoyle calls steady state universe.

Since we know that the Universe is in a state of perpetual change (as far as we can see), then the idea that everything is forever the same is false.
This, at least, allows the possiblility of unique and possibly unrepeatable events.

So what?

You did not preent any logical argument

Of course, I did. It is not my fault if you don't understand it.

[Sculptor]

Logic has to do with it. I don't understand what you are trying to say with the rest.


So what?

You did not preent any logical argument

Of course, I did. It is not my fault if you don't understand it.

You do not understand the difference between logic, reason and evidence.
You presented no actual logic.

Logical arguments are formal.
That means they have a form.
WHat you did was just present an assertion.
A logical argument tyically has a premise or collection of premises and then makes a NECESESARY conclusion based on the validity of those premises.
For example.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
therefore Socrates is mortal.

I've told you all this before but you seem to have forgetten it.

[bahman]

You did not preent any logical argument

Of course, I did. It is not my fault if you don't understand it.

You do not understand the difference between logic, reason and evidence.
You presented no actual logic.

Logical arguments are formal.
That means they have a form.
WHat you did was just present an assertion.
A logical argument tyically has a premise or collection of premises and then makes a NECESESARY conclusion based on the validity of those premises.
For example.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
therefore Socrates is mortal.

I've told you all this before but you seem to have forgetten it.

Ok, I can make a syllogism if that is what you want:

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)

[Sculptor]

Of course, I did. It is not my fault if you don't understand it.

You do not understand the difference between logic, reason and evidence.
You presented no actual logic.

Logical arguments are formal.
That means they have a form.
WHat you did was just present an assertion.
A logical argument tyically has a premise or collection of premises and then makes a NECESESARY conclusion based on the validity of those premises.
For example.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
therefore Socrates is mortal.

I've told you all this before but you seem to have forgetten it.

Ok, I can make a syllogism if that is what you want:

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)

That is better.
What do you conclude?
Either the universe does not exist as it is thought to exist by science or one or more of your premises is incorrect.
Maybe premise 3 is incorrect, that time can exist without matter.

[bahman]

You do not understand the difference between logic, reason and evidence.
You presented no actual logic.

Logical arguments are formal.
That means they have a form.
WHat you did was just present an assertion.
A logical argument tyically has a premise or collection of premises and then makes a NECESESARY conclusion based on the validity of those premises.
For example.

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
therefore Socrates is mortal.

I've told you all this before but you seem to have forgetten it.

Ok, I can make a syllogism if that is what you want:

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)

That is better.
What do you conclude?
Either the universe does not exist as it is thought to exist by science or one or more of your premises is incorrect.

The universe of course exist, it was either caused or simply existed at the beginning of time or it comes into existence in the presence of spacetime. Please note that spacetime is fundamental so it cannot be created or begin to exist since that leads to an infinite regress.

[Sculptor]

Ok, I can make a syllogism if that is what you want:

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)

That is better.
What do you conclude?
Either the universe does not exist as it is thought to exist by science or one or more of your premises is incorrect.

The universe of course exist, it was either caused or simply existed at the beginning of time or it comes into existence in the presence of spacetime. Please note that spacetime is fundamental so it cannot be created or begin to exist since that leads to an infinite regress.

Maybe.
But you cannot get this from logic, as it is an empirical or epistemological question requiring an impossible observation.

[bahman]

That is better.
What do you conclude?
Either the universe does not exist as it is thought to exist by science or one or more of your premises is incorrect.

The universe of course exist, it was either caused or simply existed at the beginning of time or it comes into existence in the presence of spacetime. Please note that spacetime is fundamental so it cannot be created or begin to exist since that leads to an infinite regress.

Maybe.
But you cannot get this from logic, as it is an empirical or epistemological question requiring an impossible observation.

What maybe refers to?

[Sculptor]

The universe of course exist, it was either caused or simply existed at the beginning of time or it comes into existence in the presence of spacetime. Please note that spacetime is fundamental so it cannot be created or begin to exist since that leads to an infinite regress.

Maybe.
But you cannot get this from logic, as it is an empirical or epistemological question requiring an impossible observation.

What maybe refers to?

Your conclusion is a maybe.