Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[bahman]

How can time have a beginning without having to begin to exist?

Time cannot begin to exist, by this I mean that it does not exist and then exists, since this is a change and any change requires time. This leads to an infinite regress that is logically impossible. We can exclude that time has existed eternally in the past for the same reason, infinite regress. So time has to have a beginning. Think of it like this: Time exists now. Now let's go back, time still exists until the beginning of time and not farther since it is meaningless to go back beyond the beginning of time! Is that clear now?

Your replies throughout this thread are completely confusing. Time began to exist at some point, but time has no beginning at any point, says you.

I didn't say that time has no beginning!

Would you please explain how you are separating ‘begin’ from ‘beginning’?

I am separating begin from begin to exist.

[commonsense]

Time cannot begin to exist, by this I mean that it does not exist and then exists, since this is a change and any change requires time. This leads to an infinite regress that is logically impossible. We can exclude that time has existed eternally in the past for the same reason, infinite regress. So time has to have a beginning. Think of it like this: Time exists now. Now let's go back, time still exists until the beginning of time and not farther since it is meaningless to go back beyond the beginning of time! Is that clear now?

Your replies throughout this thread are completely confusing. Time began to exist at some point, but time has no beginning at any point, says you.

I didn't say that time has no beginning!

Would you please explain how you are separating ‘begin’ from ‘beginning’?

I am separating begin from begin to exist.

That’s like separating eat from begin to eat.

[seeds]

Well, I have to provide you with the argument for the mind which is based on the fact that change exists. Well, the idea is that any change needs the mind to occur, and to do the change mind has to have the ability to experience and cause. Therefore, there is an experience in any location that there is a change.

No doubt, at this very moment, a near infinite number of "changes" are taking place in the innumerable solar systems and galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away from us.

Whose mind is instigating (or experiencing) those changes?

There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime. I have an argument for that if you are interested.

I don't think my neck can take any more of your "arguments," bahman.

Speaking of "whiplash," according to the Mayo Clinic (note: the bolded part is new information and is soon to be added to the list of official causes)...

Whiplash is a neck injury due to forceful, rapid back-and-forth movement of the neck, like the cracking of a whip. Whiplash is commonly caused by rear-end car accidents. But whiplash can also result from sports accidents, physical abuse and other types of traumas, such as a fall or from reading contradictory statements from confused PN forum members.

You stated the following...

"...There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime..."

However, seeing how I obviously have no life and nothing better to do at the moment, I have taken the time to compile a random sampling of your previous statements on that issue [bracketed interjections mine]...

• "There are many minds [plural] but each has existed and will exist forever."
  ----
  "Minds [plural] don't come from anything. They [plural] simply exist."
  ----
  "That is the ability of all minds [plural]."
  ----
  "Your mind, mine, other minds [plural] are writing different stories, the separate live's story, and together they [plural] write the history."
  ----
  "What we have is a set of interacting minds [plural] rather than a set of interacting particles."
  ----
  "There are many minds [plural] involved in the motion of the cosmos."
  ----
  "There was no moment in which minds [plural] didn't exist. Minds [plural] have existed since the beginning of time."
  ----
  "Minds [plural] existed since the time of Big Bang."
  ----
  "Because minds [plural] are real. There is no way to logically avoid them [plural]."
  ----
  "Or we can agree that there are many minds [plural] and start from there. We also need to agree to definition of mind, mind being essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause."
  ----
  "I argue that our experiences are personal. Separate personal experience requires separate mind. Therefore there are minds [plural]."

I could go on and on, bahman, on how you've contradicted your "there's only one mind" assertion, but I think I've made my point.

You should warn people of their need to wear a neck brace when reading your posts.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

I don't know how I could become omnipresent. I wish I knew. But to me that is the ultimate goal since you become unified with all other beings.

First of all, what makes you say that we become "unified with all other beings"?

You can experience everything and every being.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

The question is, what caused you to come to the conclusion that we will become "unified with all other beings"?

Furthermore, seeing how we leave these physical bodies behind when we die,...



...then please describe for me what aspect of our being becomes "unified with all other beings"?

And secondly - then what?

Do we all just collectively twiddle our thumbs together for eternity - trillions of years into the infinite future with no specific purpose?

I have two theories here: Either there is a meaning in life or not. We are fully satisfied with life if we can find the meaning for it otherwise life becomes troublesome when you get used to everything. We might want to return to the world of ignorance, here, to have a sense of wonder again and start things from scratch.

Well, none of your theories offer the slightest clue as to how the unthinkable order of this so-called "world of ignorance" came into being.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Yes, infinite life is problematic if there is no meaning to it.

Well, according to you, it would seem that just "knowing" the meaning of life will be enough to keep us happy and satisfied for eternity.

However, to me, we must have something logical to do to fill the void of infinite time.

In which case, I suggest that the creation and maintenance of our own personal universe, constructed from the living mental fabric of our very own inner-being (or mind) is the only thing that makes any sense for an entity in possession of eternal life.

And that's because it also comes with a forever "fruitful" purpose.

For not only will we be united with all other beings in a higher context of reality, but all of us will eventually be able to pass-on the gift of eternal life to our own offspring in precisely the same way it was passed-on to us from the Creator of this universe.

Thus, we will forever be able to experience the newness and wonder of life through the eyes of our children.

It's almost too obvious, bahman.

I mean, how much more "natural" and "organic" can the truth of reality get?
_______

[Age]

Well, I have to provide you with the argument for the mind which is based on the fact that change exists. Well, the idea is that any change needs the mind to occur, and to do the change mind has to have the ability to experience and cause. Therefore, there is an experience in any location that there is a change.

No doubt, at this very moment, a near infinite number of "changes" are taking place in the innumerable solar systems and galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away from us.

Whose mind is instigating (or experiencing) those changes?

There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime. I have an argument for that if you are interested.

But you have previously said and claimed that there are, at least, two minds, and, that you have an argument for this as well.

So, which one of these two opposing and contradictory claims here is correct?

Or, to bring this a little closer to home, whose mind is instigating the changes taking place on the surfaces of Jupiter or Saturn?
_______

The mind as I mentioned in the previous comment.

[bahman]

Your replies throughout this thread are completely confusing. Time began to exist at some point, but time has no beginning at any point, says you.

I didn't say that time has no beginning!

Would you please explain how you are separating ‘begin’ from ‘beginning’?

I am separating begin from begin to exist.

That’s like separating eat from begin to eat.

I am afraid I cannot help you.

[bahman]

No doubt, at this very moment, a near infinite number of "changes" are taking place in the innumerable solar systems and galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away from us.

Whose mind is instigating (or experiencing) those changes?

There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime. I have an argument for that if you are interested.

I don't think my neck can take any more of your "arguments," bahman.

Speaking of "whiplash," according to the Mayo Clinic (note: the bolded part is new information and is soon to be added to the list of official causes)...

Whiplash is a neck injury due to forceful, rapid back-and-forth movement of the neck, like the cracking of a whip. Whiplash is commonly caused by rear-end car accidents. But whiplash can also result from sports accidents, physical abuse and other types of traumas, such as a fall or from reading contradictory statements from confused PN forum members.

Sorry to hear that and I hope you recover quickly.

You stated the following...

"...There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime..."

However, seeing how I obviously have no life and nothing better to do at the moment, I have taken the time to compile a random sampling of your previous statements on that issue [bracketed interjections mine]...

• "There are many minds [plural] but each has existed and will exist forever."
  ----
  "Minds [plural] don't come from anything. They [plural] simply exist."
  ----
  "That is the ability of all minds [plural]."
  ----
  "Your mind, mine, other minds [plural] are writing different stories, the separate live's story, and together they [plural] write the history."
  ----
  "What we have is a set of interacting minds [plural] rather than a set of interacting particles."
  ----
  "There are many minds [plural] involved in the motion of the cosmos."
  ----
  "There was no moment in which minds [plural] didn't exist. Minds [plural] have existed since the beginning of time."
  ----
  "Minds [plural] existed since the time of Big Bang."
  ----
  "Because minds [plural] are real. There is no way to logically avoid them [plural]."
  ----
  "Or we can agree that there are many minds [plural] and start from there. We also need to agree to definition of mind, mind being essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause."
  ----
  "I argue that our experiences are personal. Separate personal experience requires separate mind. Therefore there are minds [plural]."

I could go on and on, bahman, on how you've contradicted your "there's only one mind" assertion, but I think I've made my point.

You should warn people of their need to wear a neck brace when reading your posts.

(Continued in next post)
_______

You are mixing the mind with persons, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while the person is physical. There was a long time I believed that each person has a mind but that idea has changed into one mind. The problem with the former idea was that we are moving and as a result, our minds move as well. This leads to a change in mind, mind however changeless, therefore we have a problem that can be solved by assuming that there is only one mind.

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

First of all, what makes you say that we become "unified with all other beings"?

You can experience everything and every being.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

The question is, what caused you to come to the conclusion that we will become "unified with all other beings"?

I don't have proof for that if you are looking for proof. The idea just seemed very interesting to me.

Furthermore, seeing how we leave these physical bodies behind when we die,...



...then please describe for me what aspect of our being becomes "unified with all other beings"?

I don't know what a soul is but I believe that that would be my soul that survives death.

And secondly - then what?

Do we all just collectively twiddle our thumbs together for eternity - trillions of years into the infinite future with no specific purpose?

I have two theories here: Either there is a meaning in life or not. We are fully satisfied with life if we can find the meaning for it otherwise life becomes troublesome when you get used to everything. We might want to return to the world of ignorance, here, to have a sense of wonder again and start things from scratch.

Well, none of your theories offer the slightest clue as to how the unthinkable order of this so-called "world of ignorance" came into being.

(Continued in next post)
_______

God is real this world is caused by God.

[bahman]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Yes, infinite life is problematic if there is no meaning to it.

Well, according to you, it would seem that just "knowing" the meaning of life will be enough to keep us happy and satisfied for eternity.

However, to me, we must have something logical to do to fill the void of infinite time.

In which case, I suggest that the creation and maintenance of our own personal universe, constructed from the living mental fabric of our very own inner-being (or mind) is the only thing that makes any sense for an entity in possession of eternal life.

And that's because it also comes with a forever "fruitful" purpose.

For not only will we be united with all other beings in a higher context of reality, but all of us will eventually be able to pass-on the gift of eternal life to our own offspring in precisely the same way it was passed-on to us from the Creator of this universe.

Thus, we will forever be able to experience the newness and wonder of life through the eyes of our children.

It's almost too obvious, bahman.

I mean, how much more "natural" and "organic" can the truth of reality get?
_______

A forever fruitful purpose cannot help you to not get bored from your life.

[bahman]

No doubt, at this very moment, a near infinite number of "changes" are taking place in the innumerable solar systems and galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away from us.

Whose mind is instigating (or experiencing) those changes?

There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime. I have an argument for that if you are interested.

But you have previously said and claimed that there are, at least, two minds, and, that you have an argument for this as well.

So, which one of these two opposing and contradictory claims here is correct?

Or, to bring this a little closer to home, whose mind is instigating the changes taking place on the surfaces of Jupiter or Saturn?
_______

The mind as I mentioned in the previous comment.

Sorry, I had to say two persons instead of two minds.

[commonsense]

I didn't say that time has no beginning!


I am separating begin from begin to exist.

That’s like separating eat from begin to eat.

I am afraid I cannot help you.

Is that because grammar is beyond you?

[bahman]

That’s like separating eat from begin to eat.

I am afraid I cannot help you.

Is that because grammar is beyond you?

No, because you don't understand my explanation. You replace exist with eat trying to make a point! Again, begin to exist means that it does not exist and then exists. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

[commonsense]

begin to exist means that it does not exist and then exists. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

This must mean that there is a beginning.

[bahman]

begin to exist means that it does not exist and then exists. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

This must mean that there is a beginning.

Yes, but it also says that time didn't exist and then exists.