Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[Age]

By spacetime is fundamental I mean that it simply exists, it cannot come into existence and cannot be caused. To show that assume the otherwise. This means that spacetime did not exist and then exists. This is however a change and for that you need spacetime. This leads to the infinite regress. The infinite regress is logically impossible. Therefore, the assumption is wrong. In fact, we need spacetime to allow appearing of matter whether it is caused or simply pops into existence. So spacetime exists first and then other things come into existence. Why this is true? We know that nothing to something is a change and for that you need spacetime.

THis is just an assertion

You are questioning the third premise. Is there time in nothing?

In 'what actual world' when one replies with, 'This is just an assertion', a reader sees, 'you are questioning the third premise. Is there time in nothing?'.

These people were so deceived by their own beliefs that they, really, could not even recognize and see what was actually happening to them.

Their delusional thinking was, literally, blinding them.

[bahman]

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.

So 'now' you are saying and claiming that actually energy can be created and destroyed.

And, what about the Thing, the Universe, Itself, how and why can It be, supposedly, created and destroyed?

Also, if you, again, only answer some questions, and not all of them, you are just showing and proving where and how your views here are Wrong and Incorrect.

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

No, I didn't say that.

Yes you are. Or, if you are not, then you are saying and claiming that actually the Universe is eternal.

So, which one do you want to go with 'this time'?

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.

Where is this proof, exactly, and who is/are the one/s who claim to know 'the future', irrefutably?

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

No.

So, for the one/s who want to claim that they know, absolutely, what will happen, how come you do not have a clue as to what did happen?

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.

Not answering both questions here shows and proves where and why you are Wrong and Incorrect here.

When was the so-called 'beginning', exactly?

How could a so-called 'beginning' have occurred, especially, when it is you "bahman" who keep concluding and asserting that 'nothing to something, thus a 'beginning', is logically impossible'?

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.

Which does not necessarily align with what 'infinite regress' means and refers to, exactly.

Really "bahman" you are going to have to learn and understand that if your views are not logically possible, then there must be something Wrong in and with them somewhere. So, instead of continually trying to fight and argue for what you just 'currently' believe is true I suggest you just become more OPEN and find out how, where, and why your 'current' views are not Correct.

But, as always, please feel absolutely free to choose to do whatever you want and/or feel like here.

Why you don't read my response carefully and then provide a reply? Until then I am afraid that I cannot reply to your comment as this way of discussion is getting very dispersed and gets us nowhere. Meanwhile please feel free to read this.

[Age]

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

So 'now' you are saying and claiming that actually energy can be created and destroyed.

And, what about the Thing, the Universe, Itself, how and why can It be, supposedly, created and destroyed?

Also, if you, again, only answer some questions, and not all of them, you are just showing and proving where and how your views here are Wrong and Incorrect.

No, I didn't say that.

Yes you are. Or, if you are not, then you are saying and claiming that actually the Universe is eternal.

So, which one do you want to go with 'this time'?

Yes.

Where is this proof, exactly, and who is/are the one/s who claim to know 'the future', irrefutably?

No.

So, for the one/s who want to claim that they know, absolutely, what will happen, how come you do not have a clue as to what did happen?

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

Not answering both questions here shows and proves where and why you are Wrong and Incorrect here.

When was the so-called 'beginning', exactly?

How could a so-called 'beginning' have occurred, especially, when it is you "bahman" who keep concluding and asserting that 'nothing to something, thus a 'beginning', is logically impossible'?

No, I defined one definition so far.

Which does not necessarily align with what 'infinite regress' means and refers to, exactly.

Really "bahman" you are going to have to learn and understand that if your views are not logically possible, then there must be something Wrong in and with them somewhere. So, instead of continually trying to fight and argue for what you just 'currently' believe is true I suggest you just become more OPEN and find out how, where, and why your 'current' views are not Correct.

But, as always, please feel absolutely free to choose to do whatever you want and/or feel like here.

Why you don't read my response carefully and then provide a reply? Until then I am afraid that I cannot reply to your comment as this way of discussion is getting very dispersed and gets us nowhere. Meanwhile please feel free to read this.

So, once again, I point out and show the absolute absurdity in your claims, and prove what you say and claim absolutely Wrong and Incorrect, and you, again, respond the way you do here.

You cannot or will not respond in any other way because your claims have been proved your claims here False.

Now, if you cannot counter what I have shown and proved here, then this says a lot about your claims here.

[bahman]

So 'now' you are saying and claiming that actually energy can be created and destroyed.

And, what about the Thing, the Universe, Itself, how and why can It be, supposedly, created and destroyed?

Also, if you, again, only answer some questions, and not all of them, you are just showing and proving where and how your views here are Wrong and Incorrect.



Yes you are. Or, if you are not, then you are saying and claiming that actually the Universe is eternal.

So, which one do you want to go with 'this time'?


Where is this proof, exactly, and who is/are the one/s who claim to know 'the future', irrefutably?



So, for the one/s who want to claim that they know, absolutely, what will happen, how come you do not have a clue as to what did happen?


Not answering both questions here shows and proves where and why you are Wrong and Incorrect here.

When was the so-called 'beginning', exactly?

How could a so-called 'beginning' have occurred, especially, when it is you "bahman" who keep concluding and asserting that 'nothing to something, thus a 'beginning', is logically impossible'?


Which does not necessarily align with what 'infinite regress' means and refers to, exactly.

Really "bahman" you are going to have to learn and understand that if your views are not logically possible, then there must be something Wrong in and with them somewhere. So, instead of continually trying to fight and argue for what you just 'currently' believe is true I suggest you just become more OPEN and find out how, where, and why your 'current' views are not Correct.

But, as always, please feel absolutely free to choose to do whatever you want and/or feel like here.

Why you don't read my response carefully and then provide a reply? Until then I am afraid that I cannot reply to your comment as this way of discussion is getting very dispersed and gets us nowhere. Meanwhile please feel free to read this.

So, once again, I point out and show the absolute absurdity in your claims, and prove what you say and claim absolutely Wrong and Incorrect, and you, again, respond the way you do here.

You cannot or will not respond in any other way because your claims have been proved your claims here False.

Now, if you cannot counter what I have shown and proved here, then this says a lot about your claims here.

Nonsense.

[Age]

Why you don't read my response carefully and then provide a reply? Until then I am afraid that I cannot reply to your comment as this way of discussion is getting very dispersed and gets us nowhere. Meanwhile please feel free to read this.

So, once again, I point out and show the absolute absurdity in your claims, and prove what you say and claim absolutely Wrong and Incorrect, and you, again, respond the way you do here.

You cannot or will not respond in any other way because your claims have been proved your claims here False.

Now, if you cannot counter what I have shown and proved here, then this says a lot about your claims here.

Nonsense.

Yes, what you have been saying and trying to claim here has been.

As I have already shown and proved.

[bahman]

So, once again, I point out and show the absolute absurdity in your claims, and prove what you say and claim absolutely Wrong and Incorrect, and you, again, respond the way you do here.

You cannot or will not respond in any other way because your claims have been proved your claims here False.

Now, if you cannot counter what I have shown and proved here, then this says a lot about your claims here.

Nonsense.

Yes, what you have been saying and trying to claim here has been.

As I have already shown and proved.

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

[Age]

Nonsense.

Yes, what you have been saying and trying to claim here has been.

As I have already shown and proved.

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".

[bahman]

Yes, what you have been saying and trying to claim here has been.

As I have already shown and proved.

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.

[seeds]

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.

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?
_______

[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.

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.

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.

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.

[seeds]

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.

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."
_______

[bahman]

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

Well, one needs a logical reason for the existence of God. All our spiritual experiences could be due to our subconscious minds. So who can tell the truth by just spiritual experience?

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?

None is true.

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.

[seeds]

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yes, they are both logically impossible.

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, 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.
_______

[bahman]

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,...

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.

...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. Either things popped into existence or God created them. I showed that the first scenario cannot be true so we are left with God as the source of creating the universe.

"...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.

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.

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)

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

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.

[seeds]

_______



_______