How religion does succeed in changing people minds in mass?

[bahman]

Does any act have a before and after? If not what is supposed to happen?

"Before" and "after" are terms that refer to either space or to time.

So what do you mean by "any act"? It can only mean, "any action within time and space." But Creation ex nihilo did not come from within time and space; in fact, it created both. In eternity-past, there was neither time nor space to precede the Creating event. So there was no "before" in the sense you understand the word "before" -- meaning in the sequence and interval between two material things or events within fixed space.

So there is no before and after in act of creation. This means that there is only one point that is involved in the act of creation. This means that you cannot have any change. So no creation. QED.

[Immanuel Can]

So there is no before and after in act of creation. This means that there is only one point that is involved in the act of creation. This means that you cannot have any change.

No, that doesn't follow.

"Change " is a transfer between two different points or states. Once you have Creation, you can have all kinds of changes. The important question is only whether it's possible for a "point" or "state" to be created out of nothing.

And for men, this is impossible. It's quite outside of their experience, too, since all that they observe changes. But then, men are contingent beings. All they know is stuff that changes.

But is ex nihilo Creation impossible to God?

Well, if we accept any possibility that God exists, then our answer can only be "No." Because nothing's impossible to God.

[bahman]

So there is no before and after in act of creation. This means that there is only one point that is involved in the act of creation. This means that you cannot have any change.

No, that doesn't follow.

"Change " is a transfer between two different points or states. Once you have Creation, you can have all kinds of changes. The important question is only whether it's possible for a "point" or "state" to be created out of nothing.

And for men, this is impossible. It's quite outside of their experience, too, since all that they observe changes. But then, men are contingent beings. All they know is stuff that changes.

But is ex nihilo Creation impossible to God?

Well, if we accept any possibility that God exists, then our answer can only be "No." Because nothing's impossible to God.

How could you have a change if there is only one point?

[Immanuel Can]

How could you have a change if there is only one point?

Because there isn't just one point in the whole universe: there are many. But there are no points when the universe itself does not exist.

In the gap between nothing and something, there is no space. But between something and the next something, there is a space.

[bahman]

How could you have a change if there is only one point?

Because there isn't just one point in the whole universe: there are many. But there are no points when the universe itself does not exist.

By point I didn't mean a point in space. I meant a state of affair.

In the gap between nothing and something, there is no space. But between something and the next something, there is a space.

So you agree that nothing is before something? What is between is not the subject of our discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

How could you have a change if there is only one point?

Because there isn't just one point in the whole universe: there are many. But there are no points when the universe itself does not exist.

By point I didn't mean a point in space. I meant a state of affair.

That doesn't change the problem. A state of affairs is also an event in space/time.

So you agree that nothing is before something?

That's what "ex nihilo" means. It means that before the creation, none of the things we call "things" existed. There were no substances, no molecules, no gases, no atoms...nothing at all of what we call a physical nature.

In other words, creation ex nihilo begins with God, the only self-existent Being. That's why the first three words in the first book of the Bible are, "In the beginning, God..."

[bahman]

Because there isn't just one point in the whole universe: there are many. But there are no points when the universe itself does not exist.

By point I didn't mean a point in space. I meant a state of affair.

That doesn't change the problem. A state of affairs is also an event in space/time.

By state of affair I meant space+time included.

So you agree that nothing is before something?

That's what "ex nihilo" means. It means that before the creation, none of the things we call "things" existed. There were no substances, no molecules, no gases, no atoms...nothing at all of what we call a physical nature.

In other words, creation ex nihilo begins with God, the only self-existent Being. That's why the first three words in the first book of the Bible are, "In the beginning, God..."

So if you accept that nothing is before something then this means that we are dealing with two points one comes after another one. For this you need time. This leads to regress since you need time for the creation of time. There is no creation. QED.

[Immanuel Can]

By point I didn't mean a point in space. I meant a state of affair.

That doesn't change the problem. A state of affairs is also an event in space/time.

By state of affair I meant space+time included.

I was agreeing that that is the supposition. The problem with it is that you are presuming you can call the eternal-past a "state," which you now admit means "space/time" have to be included in it.

They don't, and in fact, cannot be.

So if you accept that nothing is before something then this means that we are dealing with two points

No.

I've repeatedly said this, but I'll say it again: eternity past has no "points." There are no such things in eternity-past.

In a sense, you're making Zeno's mistake. He thought that because you could infinitely segment a path between two points, that actually made it impossible for things to move -- in spite of the fact that Zeno could see they moved every day. And for a long time, people couldn't figure out what was wrong with his argument. But the fault was that he was describing motion as a segment instead of as a ray. And a ray has a starting point, but no end point.

You're having the opposite problem. You're trying to turn eternity past into a point, and Creation into a line-segment. Since you can't find any way that it makes sense, you assume that motion, meaning change, is impossible...in spite of the fact that you witness change every day.

But the fault is in your suppositions. You have to realize that eternity-past is not a "point," and thus Creation ex nihilo has to be described as a sort of "ray" or better a "threshold," (in the sense that it's an undefined action rather than a specific point or rather than a line-segment). And until that explanation makes sense to you, you're likely to spin yourself into a tizzy trying to make it make sense, or else to just dismiss the whole thing altogether, baffled by it completely.

I understand, because Zeno fooled a lot of people for a long time. But it's still a fallacy.

[bahman]

That doesn't change the problem. A state of affairs is also an event in space/time.

By state of affair I meant space+time included.

I was agreeing that that is the supposition. The problem with it is that you are presuming you can call the eternal-past a "state," which you now admit means "space/time" have to be included in it.

They don't, and in fact, cannot be.

No, I am not saying anything about the eternal past.

So if you accept that nothing is before something then this means that we are dealing with two points

No.

I've repeatedly said this, but I'll say it again: eternity past has no "points." There are no such things in eternity-past.

In a sense, you're making Zeno's mistake. He thought that because you could infinitely segment a path between two points, that actually made it impossible for things to move -- in spite of the fact that Zeno could see they moved every day. And for a long time, people couldn't figure out what was wrong with his argument. But the fault was that he was describing motion as a segment instead of as a ray. And a ray has a starting point, but no end point.

You're having the opposite problem. You're trying to turn eternity past into a point, and Creation into a line-segment. Since you can't find any way that it makes sense, you assume that motion, meaning change, is impossible...in spite of the fact that you witness change every day.

But the fault is in your suppositions. You have to realize that eternity-past is not a "point," and thus Creation ex nihilo has to be described as a sort of "ray" or better a "threshold," (in the sense that it's an undefined action rather than a specific point or rather than a line-segment). And until that explanation makes sense to you, you're likely to spin yourself into a tizzy trying to make it make sense, or else to just dismiss the whole thing altogether, baffled by it completely.

I understand, because Zeno fooled a lot of people for a long time. But it's still a fallacy.

I am not making Zeno's mistake.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not making Zeno's mistake.

Something very close to it, I suspect.

You're arguing, it seems, that if there aren't two definite points, then nothing can happen...change is impossible, you seem to say. But Zeno failed to realize that it's possible to have only one fixed point and still have motion. Something similar is bamboozling you right now, I think.

[bahman]

I am not making Zeno's mistake.

Something very close to it, I suspect.

You're arguing, it seems, that if there aren't two definite points, then nothing can happen...change is impossible, you seem to say. But Zeno failed to realize that it's possible to have only one fixed point and still have motion. Something similar is bamboozling you right now, I think.

Causation is discrete in its nature. Cause and effect. You first have causation, the act of creation, for example, then effect, the creation for example.

[Immanuel Can]

So there is no before and after in act of creation.

No, there is an "after." There is simply no describing the eternal state as "before," though, since that's an adjective of relative time. Time comes into being at Creation.

This means that you cannot have any change.

That was what Zeno thought. He, too, might have shouted "QED," so to speak.

But he was wrong too.

[Age]

Well. I have to confess that I witness a few years of conversation in this forum and I just rarely saw any agreement between debaters. So I was wondering how religion can succeed while we cannot.

Which 'religion"?

For example, some might succeed by indoctinating and confusing people: cults do that. Or sometimes they use hallucinogens or abuse to render people pliable. Some succeed by force, making people submit to the will of their god by the sword, by bombs or by terror. Some succeed by having a great weight of cultural inertia behind them; people "born into' them believe them because they think it's part of "what they are" already, and don't know any alternatives. Some succeed by manipulating desperation, naivete or ambition.

But do any succeed by telling people the truth? That might be a good question to explore.

EVERY religion speaks of and about Truth, Itself. However, and very unfortunately, human beings can twist and distort things to such an extent that what thee ACTUAL Truth IS gets completely LOST, and forgotten.

[Age]

Well. I have to confess that I witness a few years of conversation in this forum and I just rarely saw any agreement between debaters. So I was wondering how religion can succeed while we cannot.

Because people who attend religious services go for guidance, or they are children who are just FORCED to go.

For the former ones, then they will just blindly follow whatever way they are 'guided'.

As for the latter ones, if they have heard, or more correctly been forced to hear, the exact same thing, enough times, then they can start to believe and/or follow it. Also, if what is being taught is BELIEVED wholeheartedly to be absolutely True, which is what actually happens in religious 'circles', then this BELIEF OF, and BELIEVING IN, some 'thing' can be transferred to another without absolutely doubt. This is because absolutely ANY clarifying questioning gets shot down with ludicrous and ridiculous comments like; "There are some things that we are NOT meant to know", "We can NEVER know these things", and/or just the very simple one, "STOP asking me questions", and, "now go away and leave me be. But, come back next week and LISTEN to what I tell you because what I TELL you is thee One and ONLY Truth, okay?"

Whereas, most people who attend philosophy forums, and especially philosophy forums, BELIEVE that they HAVE and KNOW some answers and truths, and thus do NOT want to hear "others" views, but instead just WANT to EXPRESS their OWN views, and have them LISTENED TO and HEARD, by "others".

So we program our children by something which is not appropriate.

Obviously YES. Just look at the human being created 'world' (and) mess, which 'you' are living in, in the days when this was written. There are obviously some VERY inappropriate things that are being programmed into children.

AND,

Obviously NO. Just look at the human being created 'world', which 'you' are living in NOW, at ANY given time. From the loving, caring, and kindness that is being given, and shared, then there are SOME VERY appropriate things that are being programmed into children.

By just doing what is WRONG, is programming children to also do what is Wrong, and by doing 'that', which is obviously WRONG is programming children with and by 'that' WRONG-doing, itself, and this is NOT appropriate. And vice-versa.

By just doing what is RIGHT, is programming children to do what is Right, and by doing 'that', which is obviously RIGHT is programming children with and by 'that' RIGHT-doing, itself, and this is VERY appropriate, behavior.

But, sadly and unfortunately, adults, in the days of when this was written still did NOT YET KNOW what is ACTUALLY Right and what is ACTUALLY Wrong in Life.

This is because these adults have just FOLLOWED ON from and in their parents/adults "footsteps" just copying what they have been taught/programmed to do.

[Immanuel Can]

Obviously YES..AND,...Obviously NO.

Oh yes...."Age." I remember you now.

Bye.