Nothing to something must be possible

[bahman]

The truth about what, the origins of the universe -- of existence -- itself? And who is given the task of deciding what the least strange thing about that is? Why philosophers at all? What is their equivalent of the scientific method in establishing this truth?

Science deals with the appearance which could be a mere illusion. Only the science that sits on a profound philosophical background can tell a part of the truth.

Okay, then let scientists who do have a profound philosophical background, using both the scientific method and the technical tools embedded in philosophy as a discipline provide us with 1] an argument pertaining to the origins of the universe, coupled with an argument pertaining to the origins of existence itself [if they are not one and the same] and 2] a demonstrable empirical proof backing that argument up.

Both of which are then backed up by a considerable portion of the scientific and the philosophical communities.

And, if it turns out that a God, the God is a part of it all, a considerable portion of the theological community as well.

Okay, you have the right to wait for others.

Oh, so now you can provide us with the most logical assessment of what happens to us after we die? The fact that you don't believe in salvation establishes that it does not exist? And rational given what context? Especially in regard to the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and all that we have no definitive idea about regarding the other side.

We really just don't know, do we? Although, yes, I do believe it is more incumbent upon those who believe in an afterlife and salvation to demonstrate to us that they do in fact exist. I just find it implausible that those who insist that they do not exist can defend that point of view with just the use of logic or in a simple truth.

I have several threads that I argue against Christian God. I don't think that the story of fall is true hence I cannot believe in salvation. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Again, I am less interested [personally] in what we argue about God and religion and cosmogony and more interested in what we can actually demonstrate to others is in fact true about them.

And, one way or another, the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself must be intertwined in the lives we live on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side. So, the closer we get to a broad consensus among the combined scientific/philosophical/theological communities, the closer we get [perhaps] to a teleological discussion: the meaning and the purpose of our lives in the context of "all there is".

I don't think that you can find a meaning or purpose in life through, scientific, philosophical, or theological discussion.

All of which apparently is moot to you:

Okay, so you could wait for the scientific community if you wish. I don't need it though.

From my frame of mind, that is the most revealing aspect of your argument so far.

Ok, then wait.

[Impenitent]

Mind composes thoughts.

is this "mind" and directly, "thoughts", matter or antimatter?

-Imp

No, mind by definition is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia, think, freely decide and cause qualia. Thought is a sort of qualia composed by mind. Thought, matter, and antimatter are reducible substances. I think that animater and matter are also sorts of qualia since our thoughts can affect our bodies so they must be in the same category, qualia.

if mind is substance, is it matter or anti matter?

if thoughts are reducible substances, from what are they construed? and how does one perceive them?

-Imp

[iambiguous]

The truth about what, the origins of the universe -- of existence -- itself? And who is given the task of deciding what the least strange thing about that is? Why philosophers at all? What is their equivalent of the scientific method in establishing this truth?

Science deals with the appearance which could be a mere illusion. Only the science that sits on a profound philosophical background can tell a part of the truth.

Okay, then let scientists who do have a profound philosophical background, using both the scientific method and the technical tools embedded in philosophy as a discipline provide us with 1] an argument pertaining to the origins of the universe, coupled with an argument pertaining to the origins of existence itself [if they are not one and the same] and 2] a demonstrable empirical proof backing that argument up.

Both of which are then backed up by a considerable portion of the scientific and the philosophical communities.

And, if it turns out that a God, the God is a part of it all, a considerable portion of the theological community as well.

Okay, you have the right to wait for others.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that folks here cease and desist from offering up their own conjectures regarding these truly fascinating questions. That's what forums like this are for.

Instead, it is when I come across those who seem [to me] to project a certain measure of certainty about their own frame of mind...a confidence that reflects [again, to me] what I call an "objectivist" perspective...that I tend to interject. As though in regards to things like cosmogony, or moral and political issues, or discussions about God and religion, what they believe is true "in their head" is the same thing as demonstrating that it is in fact true for all rational human beings.

Thus...

Again, I am less interested [personally] in what we argue about God and religion and cosmogony [and morality] and more interested in what we can actually demonstrate to others is in fact true about them.

And, one way or another, the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself must be intertwined in the lives we live on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side. So, the closer we get to a broad consensus among the combined scientific/philosophical/theological communities, the closer we get [perhaps] to a teleological discussion: the meaning and the purpose of our lives in the context of "all there is".

I don't think that you can find a meaning or purpose in life through, scientific, philosophical, or theological discussion.

Again, what one thinks about the meaning and the purpose of life on Earth -- the "human condition" -- is just not the same [to me] as providing hard evidence to demonstrate that what one thinks, others are obligated to think as well. If they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.

And, let's face it, for many being rational is the same thing as being moral. And that frame of mind, in my view, can be very, very dangerous. In, for example, communities where those who come to power are able to enforce their own beliefs on others.

All of which apparently is moot to you:

Okay, so you could wait for the scientific community if you wish. I don't need it though.

From my frame of mind, that is the most revealing aspect of your argument so far.

Ok, then wait.

Alas, I have come to believe that I will almost certainly go to the grave without access to answers to those Big Questions that revolve around cosmogony and morality and religion.

Instead, all I can do is to warn others about the dangers of those authoritarian folks who seem hell-bent on insisting that they do have access to the answers.

Their own.

And then, depending on the circumstances, others had best espouse those answers too.

The rest being, among other things, history.

[Age]

Well, It seems to me that you don't understand what I am trying to say. So I won't repeat.

And you OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET ABLE TO UNDERSTAND, FULLY, what has just ACTUALLY happened AND occurred here

I cannot make you understand that regress is not acceptable.

But 'regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

[bahman]

is this "mind" and directly, "thoughts", matter or antimatter?

-Imp

No, mind by definition is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia, think, freely decide and cause qualia. Thought is a sort of qualia composed by mind. Thought, matter, and antimatter are reducible substances. I think that animater and matter are also sorts of qualia since our thoughts can affect our bodies so they must be in the same category, qualia.

if mind is substance, is it matter or anti matter?

None. Mind is an irreducible substance by which I mean it cannot be created or destroyed. Matter and antimatter are reducible substances so they can be created or destroyed.

if thoughts are reducible substances, from what are they construed?

From previous thoughts.

and how does one perceive them?

-Imp

They are constructed and perceived when you are contemplating or meditating (I have never meditated but I was told that you can find answers to questions by meditating) on a question. You might get an answer to your question if you already have the necessary thoughts in your mind.

[bahman]

Okay, then let scientists who do have a profound philosophical background, using both the scientific method and the technical tools embedded in philosophy as a discipline provide us with 1] an argument pertaining to the origins of the universe, coupled with an argument pertaining to the origins of existence itself [if they are not one and the same] and 2] a demonstrable empirical proof backing that argument up.

Both of which are then backed up by a considerable portion of the scientific and the philosophical communities.

And, if it turns out that a God, the God is a part of it all, a considerable portion of the theological community as well.

Okay, you have the right to wait for others.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that folks here cease and desist from offering up their own conjectures regarding these truly fascinating questions. That's what forums like this are for.

Instead, it is when I come across those who seem [to me] to project a certain measure of certainty about their own frame of mind...a confidence that reflects [again, to me] what I call an "objectivist" perspective...that I tend to interject. As though in regards to things like cosmogony, or moral and political issues, or discussions about God and religion, what they believe is true "in their head" is the same thing as demonstrating that it is in fact true for all rational human beings.

Thus...

Ok. I however think that what I said logically follows

Again, I am less interested [personally] in what we argue about God and religion and cosmogony [and morality] and more interested in what we can actually demonstrate to others is in fact true about them.

And, one way or another, the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself must be intertwined in the lives we live on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" on the other side. So, the closer we get to a broad consensus among the combined scientific/philosophical/theological communities, the closer we get [perhaps] to a teleological discussion: the meaning and the purpose of our lives in the context of "all there is".

I don't think that you can find a meaning or purpose in life through, scientific, philosophical, or theological discussion.

Again, what one thinks about the meaning and the purpose of life on Earth -- the "human condition" -- is just not the same [to me] as providing hard evidence to demonstrate that what one thinks, others are obligated to think as well. If they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.

And, let's face it, for many being rational is the same thing as being moral. And that frame of mind, in my view, can be very, very dangerous. In, for example, communities where those who come to power are able to enforce their own beliefs on others.

Meaning cannot be in the category of thought or feeling. So we cannot get it through discussion. It is something special to be experienced.

All of which apparently is moot to you:

Okay, so you could wait for the scientific community if you wish. I don't need it though.

From my frame of mind, that is the most revealing aspect of your argument so far.

Ok, then wait.

Alas, I have come to believe that I will almost certainly go to the grave without access to answers to those Big Questions that revolve around cosmogony and morality and religion.

Instead, all I can do is to warn others about the dangers of those authoritarian folks who seem hell-bent on insisting that they do have access to the answers.

Their own.

And then, depending on the circumstances, others had best espouse those answers too.

The rest being, among other things, history.

I am talking logically.

[bahman]

And you OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET ABLE TO UNDERSTAND, FULLY, what has just ACTUALLY happened AND occurred here

I cannot make you understand that regress is not acceptable.

But 'regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

Does the universe have a beginning?

[Impenitent]

No, mind by definition is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience qualia, think, freely decide and cause qualia. Thought is a sort of qualia composed by mind. Thought, matter, and antimatter are reducible substances. I think that animater and matter are also sorts of qualia since our thoughts can affect our bodies so they must be in the same category, qualia.

is that a universal definition? how was this definition verified?


if mind is substance, is it matter or anti matter?

None. Mind is an irreducible substance by which I mean it cannot be created or destroyed. Matter and antimatter are reducible substances so they can be created or destroyed.

again, how was this verified?

if thoughts are reducible substances, from what are they construed?

From previous thoughts.

a circle with no origin?

and how does one perceive them?

-Imp

They are constructed and perceived when you are contemplating or meditating (I have never meditated but I was told that you can find answers to questions by meditating) on a question. You might get an answer to your question if you already have the necessary thoughts in your mind.

whose thoughts do you perceive?

-Imp

[Age]

I cannot make you understand that regress is not acceptable.

But 'regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

Does the universe have a beginning?

OF COURSE NOT. Well NOT in the sense that you are IMAGINING and TALKING ABOUT here anyway.

[bahman]

is that a universal definition? how was this definition verified?


if mind is substance, is it matter or anti matter?

None. Mind is an irreducible substance by which I mean it cannot be created or destroyed. Matter and antimatter are reducible substances so they can be created or destroyed.

again, how was this verified?

if thoughts are reducible substances, from what are they construed?

From previous thoughts.

a circle with no origin?

and how does one perceive them?

-Imp

They are constructed and perceived when you are contemplating or meditating (I have never meditated but I was told that you can find answers to questions by meditating) on a question. You might get an answer to your question if you already have the necessary thoughts in your mind.

whose thoughts do you perceive?

-Imp

I don't know. Sometimes mine, sometimes subconscious minds.

[bahman]

But 'regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

Does the universe have a beginning?

OF COURSE NOT. Well NOT in the sense that you are IMAGINING and TALKING ABOUT here anyway.

One can go forever back in time. This means that you are dealing with a regress.

[Age]

Does the universe have a beginning?

OF COURSE NOT. Well NOT in the sense that you are IMAGINING and TALKING ABOUT here anyway.

One can go forever back in time.

So, ONCE AGAIN, sometimes you SAY and CLAIM one CAN go forever back in time WHILE at other times you SAY and CLAIM one can NOT go forever back in time, and use the latter as an ATTEMPT at "justifying" your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the Universe BEGAN, from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

This means that you are dealing with a regress.

ONCE AGAIN, AS WELL:

'Regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'Regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

Saying, " 'regress' PROVES the Universe BEGAN ", would be like 'trying to' argue and say that, " 'eternal' MEANS or PROVES that the Universe did NOT BEGIN ", which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, is just a TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS thing to say, and do.

[bahman]

OF COURSE NOT. Well NOT in the sense that you are IMAGINING and TALKING ABOUT here anyway.

One can go forever back in time.

So, ONCE AGAIN, sometimes you SAY and CLAIM one CAN go forever back in time WHILE at other times you SAY and CLAIM one can NOT go forever back in time, and use the latter as an ATTEMPT at "justifying" your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the Universe BEGAN, from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

This means that you are dealing with a regress.

ONCE AGAIN, AS WELL:

'Regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'Regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

Saying, " 'regress' PROVES the Universe BEGAN ", would be like 'trying to' argue and say that, " 'eternal' MEANS or PROVES that the Universe did NOT BEGIN ", which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, is just a TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS thing to say, and do.

Do you know what infinity means?

[Age]

One can go forever back in time.

So, ONCE AGAIN, sometimes you SAY and CLAIM one CAN go forever back in time WHILE at other times you SAY and CLAIM one can NOT go forever back in time, and use the latter as an ATTEMPT at "justifying" your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the Universe BEGAN, from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

This means that you are dealing with a regress.

ONCE AGAIN, AS WELL:

'Regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'Regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

Saying, " 'regress' PROVES the Universe BEGAN ", would be like 'trying to' argue and say that, " 'eternal' MEANS or PROVES that the Universe did NOT BEGIN ", which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, is just a TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS thing to say, and do.

Do you know what infinity means?

I know what the word 'infinity' is said to mean, by some.

Do you KNOW what 'infinity' means?

[bahman]

So, ONCE AGAIN, sometimes you SAY and CLAIM one CAN go forever back in time WHILE at other times you SAY and CLAIM one can NOT go forever back in time, and use the latter as an ATTEMPT at "justifying" your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF that the Universe BEGAN, from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.



ONCE AGAIN, AS WELL:

'Regress' has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thee Universe Itself.

'Regress' is some thing that you IMAGINE, and 'try to' USE, to back up and support what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true here.

You just USE 'regress' in a way that you think and HOPE will support your CURRENT BELIEFS here.

Saying, " 'regress' PROVES the Universe BEGAN ", would be like 'trying to' argue and say that, " 'eternal' MEANS or PROVES that the Universe did NOT BEGIN ", which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, is just a TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS thing to say, and do.

Do you know what infinity means?

I know what the word 'infinity' is said to mean, by some.

Do you KNOW what 'infinity' means?

What does it mean?