Nothing to something must be possible

[iambiguous]

I don't need confirmation from the scientific community. It is alright if you need it.

Well, sure, that's one way to go about it. Like IC not needing confirmation from the Christian God that He exists.

There is a difference here. I am open to discussion based on what I offer.

So is IC. On the other hand, it seems, he'll insist that only his own "standard of evidence" is acceptable as a legitmate offering in the discussion. For example, I suspect, his own standard of evidence that there was never "nothing to something"? He'll argue that based on his own standard of evidence, the Christian God created something -- everything -- out of us.

Then the part where, on Judgment Day, we'll go up or down. Based on the Christian God's very own standard of evidence.

On the other hand, what is alright that who needs?

What do you mean?

That's what I'm asking you. You claimed not to need confirmation from the scientific community. Whereas most folks speculating about things relevant to the astrophysicist community would very much seek that out.

What is "it" that you are referring to...the confirmation? And if it is confirmation I noted that I'd need that from them in order to be more receptive to your own logic and simple truths.

[Impenitent]

is "nothing" simply an absence of matter?

-Imp

No, it is the absence of matter and antimatter or the presence of both.

the absence of matter and antimatter or the presence of both?

what makes you think that?

-Imp

[bahman]

Well, sure, that's one way to go about it. Like IC not needing confirmation from the Christian God that He exists.

There is a difference here. I am open to discussion based on what I offer.

So is IC. On the other hand, it seems, he'll insist that only his own "standard of evidence" is acceptable as a legitmate offering in the discussion. For example, I suspect, his own standard of evidence that there was never "nothing to something"? He'll argue that based on his own standard of evidence, the Christian God created something -- everything -- out of us.

Then the part where, on Judgment Day, we'll go up or down. Based on the Christian God's very own standard of evidence.

The question of the existence of God is a metaphysical question. Any supernatural being can claim that she/he is God by performing miracles. So such evidence is out of the discussion.

On the other hand, what is alright that who needs?

What do you mean?

That's what I'm asking you. You claimed not to need confirmation from the scientific community. Whereas most folks speculating about things relevant to the astrophysicist community would very much seek that out.

What is "it" that you are referring to...the confirmation? And if it is confirmation I noted that I'd need that from them in order to be more receptive to your own logic and simple truths.

I already provided an argument from physics in favor of the existence of the beginning of the universe. So, (1) and (2) are proved scientifically too. What is left is an argument for the existence of God. That must be a metaphysical argument since the problem of the existence of God is beyond the ability of science.

[bahman]

is "nothing" simply an absence of matter?

-Imp

No, it is the absence of matter and antimatter or the presence of both.

the absence of matter and antimatter or the presence of both?

what makes you think that?

-Imp

Matter and antimatter are opposite of each other. Add them up and you get nothing (let's call this process 1). You also could have nothing that turns into matter and antimatter (let's call this process 2). Process 2 is possible since process 1 is true. Just watch process 1 backward to get process 2.

[iambiguous]

There is a difference here. I am open to discussion based on what I offer.

So is IC. On the other hand, it seems, he'll insist that only his own "standard of evidence" is acceptable as a legitimate offering in the discussion. For example, I suspect, his own standard of evidence that there was never "nothing to something"? He'll argue that based on his own standard of evidence, the Christian God created something -- everything -- out of us.

Then the part where, on Judgment Day, we'll go up or down. Based on the Christian God's very own standard of evidence.

The question of the existence of God is a metaphysical question.

Well, maybe to the "serious philosohers" who approach it that way. But to millions upon millions upon millions of flesh and blood human beings who embody religion in the behaviors that they choose day in and day out, nothing is more important than being on the One True Path. After all, what is the metaphysical conclusion regarding the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then? God, say, "for all practical purposes" given the lives that we actually live.

Any supernatural being can claim that she/he is God by performing miracles. So such evidence is out of the discussion.

Just as any philosopher can string words together in speculating about the origins of existence itself and use the circular logic derived from the definition and meaning that he or she gives to the words themselves and use that as the evidence for a simple truth.

On the other hand, what is alright that who needs?

What do you mean?

That's what I'm asking you. You claimed not to need confirmation from the scientific community. Whereas most folks speculating about things relevant to the astrophysicist community would very much seek that out.

What is "it" that you are referring to...the confirmation? And if it is confirmation I noted that I'd need that from them in order to be more receptive to your own logic and simple truths.

I already provided an argument from physics in favor of the existence of the beginning of the universe. So, (1) and (2) are proved scientifically too. What is left is an argument for the existence of God. That must be a metaphysical argument since the problem of the existence of God is beyond the ability of science.

Again, in my view, as with IC and the Christian God, you intertwine the argument into the evidence in order to confirm it as the logic and the simple truth.

It's not like you have a video up on YouTube noting how and why nothing to something must be possible. Where are mathematical equations or the empirical evidence able to substantiate your claims?

Claims that the scientific community then confirm. At, say, the next meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Or, again, take your speculations to places like this: https://www.iau.org/

[Impenitent]

No, it is the absence of matter and antimatter or the presence of both.

the absence of matter and antimatter or the presence of both?

what makes you think that?

-Imp

Matter and antimatter are opposite of each other. Add them up and you get nothing (let's call this process 1). You also could have nothing that turns into matter and antimatter (let's call this process 2). Process 2 is possible since process 1 is true. Just watch process 1 backward to get process 2.

which composes thoughts?

-Imp

[bahman]

So is IC. On the other hand, it seems, he'll insist that only his own "standard of evidence" is acceptable as a legitimate offering in the discussion. For example, I suspect, his own standard of evidence that there was never "nothing to something"? He'll argue that based on his own standard of evidence, the Christian God created something -- everything -- out of us.

Then the part where, on Judgment Day, we'll go up or down. Based on the Christian God's very own standard of evidence.

The question of the existence of God is a metaphysical question.

Well, maybe to the "serious philosohers" who approach it that way. But to millions upon millions upon millions of flesh and blood human beings who embody religion in the behaviors that they choose day in and day out, nothing is more important than being on the One True Path.

People believe in all sorts of strange things. It is the duty of the philosophy, to tell the truth.

After all, what is the metaphysical conclusion regarding the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then? God, say, "for all practical purposes" given the lives that we actually live.

I don't believe in salvation. You are responsible for what you do whether there is an afterlife or not. We are rational beings in the end. Aren't we?

Any supernatural being can claim that she/he is God by performing miracles. So such evidence is out of the discussion.

Just as any philosopher can string words together in speculating about the origins of existence itself and use the circular logic derived from the definition and meaning that he or she gives to the words themselves and use that as the evidence for a simple truth.

Which part of my argument was circular?

On the other hand, what is alright that who needs?

What do you mean?

That's what I'm asking you. You claimed not to need confirmation from the scientific community. Whereas most folks speculating about things relevant to the astrophysicist community would very much seek that out.

What is "it" that you are referring to...the confirmation? And if it is confirmation I noted that I'd need that from them in order to be more receptive to your own logic and simple truths.

I already provided an argument from physics in favor of the existence of the beginning of the universe. So, (1) and (2) are proved scientifically too. What is left is an argument for the existence of God. That must be a metaphysical argument since the problem of the existence of God is beyond the ability of science.

Again, in my view, as with IC and the Christian God, you intertwine the argument into the evidence in order to confirm it as the logic and the simple truth.

It's not like you have a video up on YouTube noting how and why nothing to something must be possible. Where are mathematical equations or the empirical evidence able to substantiate your claims?

Claims that the scientific community then confirm. At, say, the next meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Or, again, take your speculations to places like this: https://www.iau.org/

Scientist believe on all sorts of strange models such as cyclic universe not knowing that regress is not acceptable.

[bahman]

the absence of matter and antimatter or the presence of both?

what makes you think that?

-Imp

Matter and antimatter are opposite of each other. Add them up and you get nothing (let's call this process 1). You also could have nothing that turns into matter and antimatter (let's call this process 2). Process 2 is possible since process 1 is true. Just watch process 1 backward to get process 2.

which composes thoughts?

-Imp

Mind composes thoughts.

[Impenitent]

Matter and antimatter are opposite of each other. Add them up and you get nothing (let's call this process 1). You also could have nothing that turns into matter and antimatter (let's call this process 2). Process 2 is possible since process 1 is true. Just watch process 1 backward to get process 2.

which composes thoughts?

-Imp

Mind composes thoughts.

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

-Imp

[iambiguous]

The question of the existence of God is a metaphysical question.

Well, maybe to the "serious philosophers" who approach it that way. But to millions upon millions upon millions of flesh and blood human beings who embody religion in the behaviors that they choose day in and day out, nothing is more important than being on the One True Path.

People believe in all sorts of strange things. It is the duty of the philosophy, to tell the truth.

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?

After all, what is the metaphysical conclusion regarding the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then? God, say, "for all practical purposes" given the lives that we actually live.

I don't believe in salvation. You are responsible for what you do whether there is an afterlife or not. We are rational beings in the end. Aren't we?

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.

Any supernatural being can claim that she/he is God by performing miracles. So such evidence is out of the discussion.

Just as any philosopher can string words together in speculating about the origins of existence itself and use the circular logic derived from the definition and meaning that he or she gives to the words themselves and use that as the evidence for a simple truth.

Which part of my argument was circular?

Again, I'm not really qualified to answer that. Instead, my focus here is on the extent to which [to me] you seem to argue that your conclusions are in fact logical and encompass a simple truth. Without confirmation from those -- a broad swath of the scientific community -- who do spend their whole lives exploring the origins of the universe professionally.

That's what I'm asking you. You claimed not to need confirmation from the scientific community. Whereas most folks speculating about things relevant to the astrophysicist community would very much seek that out.

Again, in my view, as with IC and the Christian God, you intertwine the argument into the evidence in order to confirm it as the logic and the simple truth.

It's not like you have a video up on YouTube noting how and why nothing to something must be possible. Where are mathematical equations or the empirical evidence able to substantiate your claims?

Claims that the scientific community then confirm. At, say, the next meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Or, again, take your speculations to places like this: https://www.iau.org/

Scientist believe on all sorts of strange models such as cyclic universe not knowing that regress is not acceptable.

Okay, but I don't think that is really a substantive response to the point I raise above.

[Age]

I KNOW you DO. That I ASKED you WHY you DO 'that' SHOWS and PROVES this.

Now, WHY do you NOT just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASKED you?

The assumption is true if there is no contradiction, otherwise it is false.

And, of the MANY CONTRADICTIONS you make and say some of I SHOW and REVEAL.

The age of the universe is either finite, has a beginning, or it is infinite and has no beginning.

REALLY?

WHY were you under some sort of an ASSUMPTION "others" here were NOT AWARE of this Fact and that you NEEDED to SAY and WRITE this here?

Can you reach the infinite past by watching the evolution of the universe backward? Of course not. So you cannot reach from any point in the infinite past to now too.

But, as I have EXPLAINED to you BEFORE, just because a human being can NOT do some thing, then this by itself does Not mean that a 'thing' does not exist, OBVIOUSLY.

No. Now is just one point at the time. It is not eternal.

"Now is just one point at the time" does NOT make sense in english.

You are wrong. The conclusion is correct. I cannot help you if you cannot understand such a simple argument.

What you are 'trying to' CLAIM can be VERY EASILY UNDERSTOOD. But what you are 'trying to' CLAIM can be PROVED False AND Wrong. You are just NOT YET OPEN enough to UNDERSTANDING and SEEING this Fact.

No.


It follows.

OF COURSE 'it' follows. 'it' even follows LOGICALLY, as I just SAID. However, if the Universe' did NOT begin from ANY moment, then It is infinite, ALSO 'follows', and even LOGICALLY, but does this make 'it' TRUE and RIGHT?

Does any act has a before and after? If yes how you could have an act without time?

BUT what you, Wrongly, refer to as 'rime' IS eternal, along WITH the Universe. The two go 'hand-in-hand', as some might say.

No. If there was a point that there was nothing but God.

Your response here, ONCE MORE, is MORE ABSURD than your original CLAIM IS and WAS.

A fair amount of what you say MIGHT make sense in your original language but it truly does NOT in english.

I know you believe in regress but you are wrong.

But what you SUPPOSEDLY :know' here is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY Wrong AND Absurd.

Please provide an argument.

'what' some of you human beinga refer to as 'time', like the Universe, can NOT begin. BECAUSE it is BOTH logically AND empirically IMPOSSIBLE to create some thing from NO thing. So, what some of you human beings refer to as 'time' is NOT some thing that was 'created' but is some 'thing' that exists ALWAYS, with the ALWAYS CHANGING Universe.

'Regress' is just some IMAGINED up thing, which has absolutely NO bearing in a discussion about whether the Universe began or not.

I just proved it.

Is it STILL IMPOSSIBLE for you to just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed to you?

Yes, I am.


I am familiar with the wall of words from you that explain nothing and provide nothing.

If this is what you SEE, then this is what you "UNDERSTAND".

Are you AWARE that 'others" SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY from you here?

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

[bahman]

which composes thoughts?

-Imp

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.

[bahman]

Well, maybe to the "serious philosophers" who approach it that way. But to millions upon millions upon millions of flesh and blood human beings who embody religion in the behaviors that they choose day in and day out, nothing is more important than being on the One True Path.

People believe in all sorts of strange things. It is the duty of the philosophy, to tell the truth.

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.

After all, what is the metaphysical conclusion regarding the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then? God, say, "for all practical purposes" given the lives that we actually live.

I don't believe in salvation. You are responsible for what you do whether there is an afterlife or not. We are rational beings in the end. Aren't we?

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.

Any supernatural being can claim that she/he is God by performing miracles. So such evidence is out of the discussion.

Just as any philosopher can string words together in speculating about the origins of existence itself and use the circular logic derived from the definition and meaning that he or she gives to the words themselves and use that as the evidence for a simple truth.

Which part of my argument was circular?

Again, I'm not really qualified to answer that. Instead, my focus here is on the extent to which [to me] you seem to argue that your conclusions are in fact logical and encompass a simple truth. Without confirmation from those -- a broad swath of the scientific community -- who do spend their whole lives exploring the origins of the universe professionally.

Okay.

That's what I'm asking you. You claimed not to need confirmation from the scientific community. Whereas most folks speculating about things relevant to the astrophysicist community would very much seek that out.

Again, in my view, as with IC and the Christian God, you intertwine the argument into the evidence in order to confirm it as the logic and the simple truth.

It's not like you have a video up on YouTube noting how and why nothing to something must be possible. Where are mathematical equations or the empirical evidence able to substantiate your claims?

Claims that the scientific community then confirm. At, say, the next meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Or, again, take your speculations to places like this: https://www.iau.org/

Scientists believe in all sorts of strange models such as the cyclic universe not knowing that regress is not acceptable.

Okay, but I don't think that is really a substantive response to the point I raise above.

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

[bahman]

And, of the MANY CONTRADICTIONS you make and say some of I SHOW and REVEAL.


REALLY?

WHY were you under some sort of an ASSUMPTION "others" here were NOT AWARE of this Fact and that you NEEDED to SAY and WRITE this here?



But, as I have EXPLAINED to you BEFORE, just because a human being can NOT do some thing, then this by itself does Not mean that a 'thing' does not exist, OBVIOUSLY.


"Now is just one point at the time" does NOT make sense in english.


What you are 'trying to' CLAIM can be VERY EASILY UNDERSTOOD. But what you are 'trying to' CLAIM can be PROVED False AND Wrong. You are just NOT YET OPEN enough to UNDERSTANDING and SEEING this Fact.

OF COURSE 'it' follows. 'it' even follows LOGICALLY, as I just SAID. However, if the Universe' did NOT begin from ANY moment, then It is infinite, ALSO 'follows', and even LOGICALLY, but does this make 'it' TRUE and RIGHT?



BUT what you, Wrongly, refer to as 'rime' IS eternal, along WITH the Universe. The two go 'hand-in-hand', as some might say.


Your response here, ONCE MORE, is MORE ABSURD than your original CLAIM IS and WAS.

A fair amount of what you say MIGHT make sense in your original language but it truly does NOT in english.


But what you SUPPOSEDLY :know' here is ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY Wrong AND Absurd.


'what' some of you human beinga refer to as 'time', like the Universe, can NOT begin. BECAUSE it is BOTH logically AND empirically IMPOSSIBLE to create some thing from NO thing. So, what some of you human beings refer to as 'time' is NOT some thing that was 'created' but is some 'thing' that exists ALWAYS, with the ALWAYS CHANGING Universe.

'Regress' is just some IMAGINED up thing, which has absolutely NO bearing in a discussion about whether the Universe began or not.



Is it STILL IMPOSSIBLE for you to just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed to you?


If this is what you SEE, then this is what you "UNDERSTAND".

Are you AWARE that 'others" SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY from you here?

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.

[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.

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".

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.