Nothing to something must be possible

[iambiguous]

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.

That's basically my point regarding discussions of the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself. We can relate to others what we think and feel about it in a "world of words" here, but that's not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that how we do construe it logically or epistemologically is on par with providing the sort of evidence one would need to confirm that what we think and feel about it is in fact true empirically, materially or phenomenologically.

Thus back to this:

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.

Right, as though here and now, mere mortals on planet Earth, given the staggering vastness of all there is, can, using logic and the tools of philosophy, demonstrate definitive conclusions about the nature of existence itself or about God and religion or about morality and ethics.

Meanwhile, scientists, with the tools at their disposal, are nowhere near to pinning it all down themselves.

Just Google "cosmogony": https://www.google.com/search?q=cosmogo ... nt=gws-wiz

So, who comes the closest to finally explaining whether everything there is came from nothing at all? And why the something that there is, is what it is and not something else?

Then the part where you and I fit into it all.

[Age]

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?

To who?

And WHY do you NOT ANSWER my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you?

[Age]

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.

That's basically my point regarding discussions of the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself.

WHY do you PRESUME they BEGAN?

We can relate to others what we think and feel about it in a "world of words" here, but that's not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that how we do construe it logically or epistemologically is on par with providing the sort of evidence one would need to confirm that what we think and feel about it is in fact true empirically, materially or phenomenologically.

JUST PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PROOF.

How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could this get AND be?

The 'meaning' of ANY thing could ALWAYS REMAIN INDIVIDUAL. BUT, if one wants to CLAIM some thing is true, right, and/or correct, then WHY NOT JUST PROVIDE that ACTUAL PROOF that they OBVIOUSLY ALREADY SHOULD or MUST HAVE USED for arriving at, and having and/or holding the view or BELIEF that they have.

Thus back to this:

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.

Right, as though here and now, mere mortals on planet Earth, given the staggering vastness of all there is, can, using logic and the tools of philosophy, demonstrate definitive conclusions about the nature of existence itself or about God and religion or about morality and ethics.

OF COURSE THEY CAN, and COULD, that is; IF, and WHEN, they have IRREFUTABLE PROOF. SIMPLE REALLY.

Meanwhile, scientists, with the tools at their disposal, are nowhere near to pinning it all down themselves.

WHY would absolutely ANY one ASSUME or PRESUME that so-called "scientists" are MORE SUPERIOR here in this regard?

Just Google "cosmogony": https://www.google.com/search?q=cosmogo ... nt=gws-wiz

This link here EXPLAINS in DETAIL WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, WERE STILL SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS or the Truth here.

So, who comes the closest to finally explaining whether everything there is came from nothing at all?

The one WITH the IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

And why the something that there is, is what it is and not something else?

BECAUSE the 'something' could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

Then the part where you and I fit into it all.

This just, 'FALLS INTO PLACE, Naturally', as some might say.

It is ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

[iambiguous]

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.

That's basically my point regarding discussions of the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself.

WHY do you PRESUME they BEGAN?

We can relate to others what we think and feel about it in a "world of words" here, but that's not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that how we do construe it logically or epistemologically is on par with providing the sort of evidence one would need to confirm that what we think and feel about it is in fact true empirically, materially or phenomenologically.

JUST PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PROOF.

How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could this get AND be?

The 'meaning' of ANY thing could ALWAYS REMAIN INDIVIDUAL. BUT, if one wants to CLAIM some thing is true, right, and/or correct, then WHY NOT JUST PROVIDE that ACTUAL PROOF that they OBVIOUSLY ALREADY SHOULD or MUST HAVE USED for arriving at, and having and/or holding the view or BELIEF that they have.

Thus back to this:

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.

Right, as though here and now, mere mortals on planet Earth, given the staggering vastness of all there is, can, using logic and the tools of philosophy, demonstrate definitive conclusions about the nature of existence itself or about God and religion or about morality and ethics.

OF COURSE THEY CAN, and COULD, that is; IF, and WHEN, they have IRREFUTABLE PROOF. SIMPLE REALLY.

Meanwhile, scientists, with the tools at their disposal, are nowhere near to pinning it all down themselves.

WHY would absolutely ANY one ASSUME or PRESUME that so-called "scientists" are MORE SUPERIOR here in this regard?

Just Google "cosmogony": https://www.google.com/search?q=cosmogo ... nt=gws-wiz

This link here EXPLAINS in DETAIL WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, WERE STILL SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS or the Truth here.

So, who comes the closest to finally explaining whether everything there is came from nothing at all?

The one WITH the IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

And why the something that there is, is what it is and not something else?

BECAUSE the 'something' could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

Then the part where you and I fit into it all.

This just, 'FALLS INTO PLACE, Naturally', as some might say.

It is ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

WHAT IS IT WITH THIS GUY?!!!

[Sculptor]

To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal,

It is not possible to demonstrate this, since when the universe is NOT you also are NOT.

(2) the universe has a beginning, and

Since the universe was already present when you came into being you cannot have witnessed the beginning.

(3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

Logic has nothing to do with it, since logic relies wholly on premises it cannot be used to demonstrate the impossible, since other premises can be used to refute that finding.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal. This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Nice collection of non sequiturs

(2): This follows from (1). If the universe has not existed since the infinite past then it has a beginning.

(3): Any act requires time. The act of creation includes the creation of time. This leads to a regress since you need time for the creation of time. The regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

Now we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible. We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.

[Age]

To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal,

It is not possible to demonstrate this, since when the universe is NOT you also are NOT.

(2) the universe has a beginning, and

Since the universe was already present when you came into being you cannot have witnessed the beginning.

WHY do SO MANY PEOPLE, in the days when this is being written, ASSUME that the Universe BEGAN?

The ANSWER, by the way, is ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE and OBVIOUS. I will provide a HINT. It is because of THREE WORDS.

(3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

Logic has nothing to do with it, since logic relies wholly on premises it cannot be used to demonstrate the impossible, since other premises can be used to refute that finding.

WHY do you PRESUME and/or BELIEVE that it IS absolutely and irrefutably IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate that the Universe IS ETERNAL?

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal. This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Nice collection of non sequiturs

(2): This follows from (1). If the universe has not existed since the infinite past then it has a beginning.

(3): Any act requires time. The act of creation includes the creation of time. This leads to a regress since you need time for the creation of time. The regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

Now we are in the position to show that nothing to something must be possible. We showed that the universe has a beginning and the act of creation is logically impossible, Therefore, nothing to something must be possible.

[Age]

That's basically my point regarding discussions of the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself.

WHY do you PRESUME they BEGAN?

We can relate to others what we think and feel about it in a "world of words" here, but that's not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that how we do construe it logically or epistemologically is on par with providing the sort of evidence one would need to confirm that what we think and feel about it is in fact true empirically, materially or phenomenologically.

JUST PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PROOF.

How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could this get AND be?

The 'meaning' of ANY thing could ALWAYS REMAIN INDIVIDUAL. BUT, if one wants to CLAIM some thing is true, right, and/or correct, then WHY NOT JUST PROVIDE that ACTUAL PROOF that they OBVIOUSLY ALREADY SHOULD or MUST HAVE USED for arriving at, and having and/or holding the view or BELIEF that they have.

Thus back to this:




Right, as though here and now, mere mortals on planet Earth, given the staggering vastness of all there is, can, using logic and the tools of philosophy, demonstrate definitive conclusions about the nature of existence itself or about God and religion or about morality and ethics.

OF COURSE THEY CAN, and COULD, that is; IF, and WHEN, they have IRREFUTABLE PROOF. SIMPLE REALLY.

Meanwhile, scientists, with the tools at their disposal, are nowhere near to pinning it all down themselves.

WHY would absolutely ANY one ASSUME or PRESUME that so-called "scientists" are MORE SUPERIOR here in this regard?

Just Google "cosmogony": https://www.google.com/search?q=cosmogo ... nt=gws-wiz

This link here EXPLAINS in DETAIL WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, WERE STILL SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS or the Truth here.

So, who comes the closest to finally explaining whether everything there is came from nothing at all?

The one WITH the IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

And why the something that there is, is what it is and not something else?

BECAUSE the 'something' could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

Then the part where you and I fit into it all.

This just, 'FALLS INTO PLACE, Naturally', as some might say.

It is ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

WHAT IS IT WITH THIS GUY?!!!

A PRIME EXAMPLE of a TYPICAL RESPONSE from one who can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS or BELIEFS, can NOT just CLARIFY nor ELABORATE ON and EXPLAIN what they ACTUALLY MEAN, and/or have been PROVED Wrong or Incorrect.

[bahman]

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.

That's basically my point regarding discussions of the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself. We can relate to others what we think and feel about it in a "world of words" here, but that's not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that how we do construe it logically or epistemologically is on par with providing the sort of evidence one would need to confirm that what we think and feel about it is in fact true empirically, materially or phenomenologically.

Ok, I got you.

Thus back to this:

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.

Right, as though here and now, mere mortals on planet Earth, given the staggering vastness of all there is, can, using logic and the tools of philosophy, demonstrate definitive conclusions about the nature of existence itself or about God and religion or about morality and ethics.

Meanwhile, scientists, with the tools at their disposal, are nowhere near to pinning it all down themselves.

Just Google "cosmogony": https://www.google.com/search?q=cosmogo ... nt=gws-wiz

So, who comes the closest to finally explaining whether everything there is came from nothing at all? And why the something that there is, is what it is and not something else?

Then the part where you and I fit into it all.

Ok, you again refer me to the scientific community.

[bahman]

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

Do you KNOW what 'infinity' means?

What does it mean?

To who?

And WHY do you NOT ANSWER my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you?

What does infinity mean to you? To me, time has either a beginning, which means the time duration between the beginning of time and now is finite, or it does not have any beginning, which means the time duration between any point in the infinite past and now is infinite.

[bahman]

To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal,

It is not possible to demonstrate this, since when the universe is NOT you also are NOT. Do you think that reality is subjected to exist of human?

So. If the life on the earth didn't exist then there is no universe! Do you believe that the universe does not exist independent of the human mind?

(2) the universe has a beginning, and

Since the universe was already present when you came into being you cannot have witnessed the beginning.

I don't need to witness the beginning.

(3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

Logic has nothing to do with it, since logic relies wholly on premises it cannot be used to demonstrate the impossible, since other premises can be used to refute that finding.

It has. As I showed.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal. This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Nice collection of non sequiturs

It is not. Is infinity reachable?

[Sculptor]

To show this I have to show three things: (1) The universe cannot be eternal,

It is not possible to demonstrate this, since when the universe is NOT you also are NOT. Do you think that reality is subjected to exist of human?

So. If the life on the earth didn't exist then there is no universe! Do you believe that the universe does not exist independent of the human mind?

FFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.

(2) the universe has a beginning, and

Since the universe was already present when you came into being you cannot have witnessed the beginning.

I don't need to witness the beginning.

That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.

(3) the act of creation is logically impossible.

Logic has nothing to do with it, since logic relies wholly on premises it cannot be used to demonstrate the impossible, since other premises can be used to refute that finding.

It has. As I showed.

No. You have not used any logic.

(1): Let's assume that the universe is eternal. This means that the universe has existed since the infinite past. Infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, it is impossible to reach from the eternal past to the now. Therefore the assumption is wrong. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Nice collection of non sequiturs

It is not. Is infinity reachable?

By definition no.
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

[bahman]

It is not possible to demonstrate this, since when the universe is NOT you also are NOT. Do you think that reality is subjected to exist of human?

So. If the life on the earth didn't exist then there is no universe! Do you believe that the universe does not exist independent of the human mind?

FFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.

Since the universe was already present when you came into being you cannot have witnessed the beginning.

I don't need to witness the beginning.

That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.

Logic has nothing to do with it, since logic relies wholly on premises it cannot be used to demonstrate the impossible, since other premises can be used to refute that finding.

It has. As I showed.

No. You have not used any logic.

Nice collection of non sequiturs

It is not. Is infinity reachable?

By definition no.
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

So one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?

[iambiguous]

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.

That's basically my point regarding discussions of the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself. We can relate to others what we think and feel about it in a "world of words" here, but that's not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that how we do construe it logically or epistemologically is on par with providing the sort of evidence one would need to confirm that what we think and feel about it is in fact true empirically, materially or phenomenologically.

Ok, I got you.

Thus back to this:

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.

Right, as though here and now, mere mortals on planet Earth, given the staggering vastness of all there is, can, using logic and the tools of philosophy, demonstrate definitive conclusions about the nature of existence itself or about God and religion or about morality and ethics.

Meanwhile, scientists, with the tools at their disposal, are nowhere near to pinning it all down themselves.

Just Google "cosmogony": https://www.google.com/search?q=cosmogo ... nt=gws-wiz

So, who comes the closest to finally explaining whether everything there is came from nothing at all? And why the something that there is, is what it is and not something else?

Then the part where you and I fit into it all.

Ok, you again refer me to the scientific community.

So, you don't have a clue as to how to respond substantively to the points I raise, do you?

[bahman]

That's basically my point regarding discussions of the origin of the universe and/or of existence itself. We can relate to others what we think and feel about it in a "world of words" here, but that's not the same thing as being able to demonstrate to others that how we do construe it logically or epistemologically is on par with providing the sort of evidence one would need to confirm that what we think and feel about it is in fact true empirically, materially or phenomenologically.

Ok, I got you.

Thus back to this:




Right, as though here and now, mere mortals on planet Earth, given the staggering vastness of all there is, can, using logic and the tools of philosophy, demonstrate definitive conclusions about the nature of existence itself or about God and religion or about morality and ethics.

Meanwhile, scientists, with the tools at their disposal, are nowhere near to pinning it all down themselves.

Just Google "cosmogony": https://www.google.com/search?q=cosmogo ... nt=gws-wiz

So, who comes the closest to finally explaining whether everything there is came from nothing at all? And why the something that there is, is what it is and not something else?

Then the part where you and I fit into it all.

Ok, you again refer me to the scientific community.

So, you don't have a clue as to how to respond substantively to the points I raise, do you?

I don't know how to deal with you. When I ask for a counterargument you say that you are not qualified. You then refer me to the scientific community which partly believes in regress! Others believe that there is a beginning for the universe. So they are confused. They need a metaphysical argument.

[Sculptor]

So. If the life on the earth didn't exist then there is no universe! Do you believe that the universe does not exist independent of the human mind?

FFS. You really want to conclude THAT from what I said??
I said YOU! YOU cannot demonstrate this. You are not the human race.

I don't need to witness the beginning.

That's fine until you want to claim something that entails that.

It has. As I showed.

No. You have not used any logic.

It is not. Is infinity reachable?

By definition no.
To reach something, you need to have an end.
Eternity and infinity do not stop, it is not refuted at any point. If the universe ends then you are not here to say if the universe was eternal or not.
If the universe is eternal then you have a long time to wait to prove it.
Either way infinity can never be demonstrated or refuted.

So one cannot reach from the eternal past to now. Agree?

That is not what I am saying.
That statement implies an "eternal" past which cannot be verifiable.