Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote:
Good to see you back by the way

I will no longer be posting on the forum as it is not actually necessary for me to do so any more
I will however carry on trying to understand you as best as I can based upon what you post here

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:28 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:08 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:50 pm There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause. There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.

What better than to recognize that "absolutely nothing" suffices as the particular identity to "no cause" then!

There's no such thing as no cause either. Just like nothing, there may be always a particular lack of cause; "I ordered that cheeseburger for no reason." isn't actually no cause at all.

Note that you'd need some set theory background to understand this, but given even the fact that there are an infinite real numbers between any two numbers. [usually defined formally as a type of 'equality' or one-to-one and 'onto' relationship called the cardinality of the 'continuum'] This means that we have real reason to infer that where the universe can be infinite in both directions of time, these can still be 'bounded' by definitive ends. This is like saying that we can define any interval that is in between two definite fixed points but NOT include those points. As such, an 'origin' is possible. That you cannot determine this from inside relates to 'limits'.

I argue this with respect to the appearance of a singular point in time, such as that which gives the appearance of the Universe to be 14 Billion years old. That is, I argue that the 14 Billion years is an illusion of perspective only. I also hold to a Steady State type model, not the Big Bang which differs mainly in that the Big Bang literally requires the singularity to be a real fixed zero in time, contrary to a lot of backtracking that has been proposed to save it. [politics is my suspect as it was with those proposing Steady State; it saves particular religious interpretation but messes up with the logic.]

I also assume no assumptions that LIMIT what could be possible. This requires presuming Totality as that which contains all AND nothing. Because this concept is relatively confusing and contradicting for any specific location in it, like our particular Universe, this lead us to conclude that Absolutely Everything (we can label, "Totality") is identical logically to Absolutely Nothing to be real for being included within it.

So when I speak of 'origins', given this itself begs a beginning in time but ignores that time is itself a feature in it, each point in all spaces in all universes (or none) [ie, Totality], may be treated as the meaning of this "absolute nothing". Set theories call this the 'empty set'.

You cannot logically infer substance (a 'something' to our bias of existence) either, because you can tear each and everything down to its most atomic elements within space, and you come to mere points that are themselves 'nothing'. Totality is an abstraction that 'manifests' the illusion of the physical rules but since these are all JUST 'laws of descriptive' comparisons OF points, everything is technically reduced to that which we refer to as 'nothing'.

Also, "nothing" times a continuum of all the points, is then both "something and nothing" simultaneously. IF we only had 'finite' real parts, then your belief in infinties begins to demonstrate new paradoxes. So "nothing" is more real than anything and more Necessary for anything to exist.

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=481681 time=1606403729 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481670 time=1606397323 user_id=15238]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=481659 time=1606392499 user_id=11118]

What better than to recognize that "absolutely nothing" suffices as the particular identity to "no cause" then!
[/quote]

There's no such thing as no cause either. Just like nothing, there may be always a particular lack of cause; "I ordered that cheeseburger for no reason." isn't actually no cause at all.
[/quote]

Note that you'd need some set theory background to understand this, but given even the fact that there are an infinite real numbers between any two numbers. [usually defined formally as a type of 'equality' or one-to-one and 'onto' relationship called the cardinality of the 'continuum'] This means that we have real reason to infer that where the universe can be infinite in both directions of time, these can still be 'bounded' by definitive ends. This is like saying that we can define any interval that is in between two definite fixed points but NOT include those points. As such, an 'origin' is possible. That you cannot determine this from inside relates to 'limits'.

I argue this with respect to the [i]appearance[/i] of a singular point in time, such as that which gives the appearance of the Universe to be 14 Billion years old. That is, I argue that the 14 Billion years is an illusion of perspective only. I also hold to a Steady State type model, not the Big Bang which differs mainly in that the Big Bang literally requires the singularity to be a real fixed zero in time, contrary to a lot of backtracking that has been proposed to save it. [politics is my suspect as it was with those proposing Steady State; it saves particular religious interpretation but messes up with the logic.]

I also assume no assumptions that LIMIT what could be possible. This requires presuming Totality as that which contains all AND nothing. Because this concept is relatively confusing and contradicting for any specific location in it, like our particular Universe, this lead us to conclude that Absolutely Everything (we can label, "Totality") is identical logically to Absolutely Nothing to be real for being included within it.

So when I speak of 'origins', given this itself begs a beginning in time but ignores that time is itself a feature in it, each point in all spaces in all universes (or none) [ie, Totality], may be treated as the meaning of this "absolute nothing". Set theories call this the 'empty set'.

You cannot logically infer substance (a 'something' to our bias of existence) either, because you can tear each and everything down to its most atomic elements within space, and you come to mere points that are themselves 'nothing'. Totality is an abstraction that 'manifests' the illusion of the physical rules but since these are all JUST 'laws of descriptive' comparisons OF points, everything is technically reduced to that which we refer to as 'nothing'.

Also, "nothing" times a continuum of all the points, is then both "something and nothing" simultaneously. IF we only had 'finite' real parts, then your belief in infinties begins to demonstrate new paradoxes. So "nothing" is more real than anything and more Necessary for anything to exist.
[/quote]

Numbers are descriptive of relationships of quantity and quantity only exists to the extent we differentiate/measure things for reasons.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:24 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:08 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:55 pm There is no such thing as nothing.

How do you know that there was not such a thing as nothing?

in 100% of all examples, i can show you what is missing explicitly. A lack of anything at all wouldn't be any thing we could talk about. Empty space exists as a relationship between other things.

Nothing is thus multiplicity as the observation of multiple parts.

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=481710 time=1606428902 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=479265 time=1604967886 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=479262 time=1604966897 user_id=12593]

How do you know that there was not such a thing as nothing?
[/quote]

in 100% of all examples, i can show you what is missing explicitly. A lack of anything at all wouldn't be any thing we could talk about. Empty space exists as a relationship between other things.
[/quote]

Nothing is thus multiplicity as the observation of multiple parts.
[/quote]

Eh? Rephrase please.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:20 pm
Numbers are descriptive of relationships of quantity and quantity only exists to the extent we differentiate/measure things for reasons.

That is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.

But tell me then, given what you think you know, what do you reduce physics to as elemental properties.

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=481713 time=1606429553 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481688 time=1606407654 user_id=15238]

Numbers are descriptive of relationships of quantity and quantity only exists to the extent we differentiate/measure things for reasons.
[/quote]

That is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.

But tell me then, given what you think you know, what do you reduce physics to as elemental properties.
[/quote]

No it's not, no it doesn't.

That's basically a physics question but if you want a metaphysical answer, deconstruction according to logic and purpose. The base of the ToE in physics is Delta (change over time), because all physical things, mass, matter, gravity, energy, causality, the speed of light, etc. can be understood in relation to it, and through it in relation to reach other. Change is the universal substrate of the universe.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:15 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 1:24 am in 100% of all examples, i can show you what is missing explicitly. A lack of anything at all wouldn't be any thing we could talk about. Empty space exists as a relationship between other things.

Nothing is thus multiplicity as the observation of multiple parts.

Eh? Rephrase please.

Nothingness cannot be observed except through distinction, this distinction necessitates multiplicity. For example water and air in glass are observed through the distinct line which seperates them in one respect and contains them in another. This line, between the water and air, is inherently empty. Void thus acts as a means of distinction with these distinctive boundaries being fundamentally empty.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:34 am
What do you think or believe 'it' is that I am trying to 'understand' here EXACTLY?

Have you forgotten that it is 'you' who has developed some 'theory', which you want 'understood'.

I do NOT do 'theory', as they are completely UNNECESSARY. Especially considering what is directly in front of you.

Then you have no purpose to discussing this with anyone beyond trying to impose some impossible burden of convincing you differently for anything.

What EXACTLY is 'this' now, which you allege I have no purpose to discuss?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am You assert a definitive closed mind THAT any theory or opinion of anyone's is necessary.

You appear very confused here.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am Therefore you have no justification to debate when you simplistically believe that all realities speak for themselves.

Like 'theories', I neither do 'debate'. And, I also neither 'believe' this.

You have a great deal more to learn, about 'me'.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am Who gave you the authority to speak for reality?

When, and IF, 'you' ever understand who thee 'I' IS, then 'you' will KNOW.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:14 am If we can see this by default, then there is no need to complain if WE SEE something differrent than you.

Who here do 'you' propose is "complaining"?

Could 'you' be wrong?

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:36 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:25 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:20 pm
Numbers are descriptive of relationships of quantity and quantity only exists to the extent we differentiate/measure things for reasons.

That is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.

But tell me then, given what you think you know, what do you reduce physics to as elemental properties.

No it's not, no it doesn't.

That's basically a physics question but if you want a metaphysical answer, deconstruction according to logic and purpose. The base of the ToE in physics is Delta (change over time), because all physical things, mass, matter, gravity, energy, causality, the speed of light, etc. can be understood in relation to it, and through it in relation to reach other. Change is the universal substrate of the universe.

My bad.....I thought we were discussing in a philosophy site under the subforum, metaphysics!..?

The greek 'delta' is just a symbol to represent change in anything. Your use of stating it is odd. As an extension for using Calculus for real physics, the derivative is the change (using the small letter delta) of anything with respect to the limit of change in time AS IT APPROACHES zero. This is because the INSTANTANEOUS rates used have NO time:

dx
dt,

where x is any physical measure with respect to the CHANGE in time as t becomes or equals 0!

IF the math that is being used as a tool for physics, it has to be understood as real or it lacks substance for proving anything regarding real measures.


I already tried discussing Zenos paradoxes that is more in line with discussing this on the metaphysical role that leads to physics here but no one seems to have the capacity to understand it here. I am not wasting time bothering to try when others have a fixed head on asserting with closure that there cannot be any possible argument that could convince them any differently about the reality of 'nothing'. People seem to have a better faith in the possibility of an argument for the existence of gods here then the non-mythically-laden concept of 'nothing' (or, by extension, 'infinities')!??

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=481923 time=1606515048 user_id=11118]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481716 time=1606430204 user_id=15238]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=481713 time=1606429553 user_id=11118]


That is naive and prevents discovery of how nature actually works.

But tell me then, given what you think you know, what do you reduce physics to as elemental properties.
[/quote]

No it's not, no it doesn't.

That's basically a physics question but if you want a metaphysical answer, deconstruction according to logic and purpose. The base of the ToE in physics is Delta (change over time), because all physical things, mass, matter, gravity, energy, causality, the speed of light, etc. can be understood in relation to it, and through it in relation to reach other. Change is the universal substrate of the universe.
[/quote]
My bad.....I thought we were discussing in a philosophy site under the subforum, metaphysics!..?

The greek 'delta' is just a symbol to represent change in anything. Your use of stating it is odd. As an extension for using Calculus for real physics, the derivative is the change (using the small letter delta) of anything with respect to the limit of change in time AS IT APPROACHES zero. This is because the INSTANTANEOUS rates used have NO time:

[u][b]dx[/u]
dt[/b],

where x is any physical measure with respect to the CHANGE in time as t becomes or equals 0!

IF the math that is being used as a tool for physics, it has to be understood as real or it lacks substance for proving anything regarding real measures.


I already tried discussing Zenos paradoxes that is more in line with discussing this on the metaphysical role that leads to physics here but no one seems to have the capacity to understand it here. I am not wasting time bothering to try when others have a fixed head on asserting with closure that there cannot be any possible argument that could convince them any differently about the reality of 'nothing'. People seem to have a better faith in the possibility of an argument for the existence of gods here then the non-mythically-laden concept of 'nothing' (or, by extension, 'infinities')!??
[/quote]

Infinity, like perfection, is a direction, not s destination.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:23 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:10 am
Nothing is absence of any thing which make complete sence.

'Nothing is absence of ANY thing' might make complete sense, but this 'nothing' exists in imagination only.

Not if we accept that there was a beginning.

For 'us' to accept that there was a beginning, then, for 'me' anyway, there would NEED TO BE a logical AND an empirical possibility for this to be able to occur.

From what I have observed and can see there is NO logical NOR empirical possibility that there could have been 'a beginning'.

Now, you are completely FREE to show me how 'a beginning' could even be a possibility. I await for you to do this.

You are also FREE to accept 'a beginning' if you like.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.

How can 'you', logically, conclude there was 'a nothing' if as you said, " 'it' was either something or nothing "?

Also, all of this is based on 'you' accepting 'a beginning' (in the first place). As I said, from what I have observed so far 'a beginning' is NOT logically NOR empirically even a possibility.

From what I observe; There is NO beginning. This, to me, makes PERFECT SENSE when combined with EVERY thing else.

To me, 'A beginning' is just illogical AND absurd. But as I say, you are FREE to see and believe whatever you like.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:23 am It is not logically possible nor is it empirically possible for there to be an absence of ANY thing, EVER.

That is a possibility as it is illustrated in the last comment.

What you wrote is NOT a possibility.

What you wrote is just an attempt at supporting, or justifying, your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

Your BELIEF that is illogical AND absurd, I will add. Causality - cause and effect - proves this fact.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:50 pm There is no reason to believe there is a first cause just because everything has a cause.

This is True because the cause of EVERY thing comes from TWO things.

These two things have BOTH ALWAYS existed, and because of EACH's own, ALWAYS, existence this, in a sense, causes thee "other".

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:50 pm There is no reason to believe that beginnings or ends exist in Actuality. Y'all are tilting at ancient windmills. No wind blows there.

WHY do 'you' say, "Y'all", here?

Not ALL are BELIEVING what 'you' say here.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
The PoC means that you need an agent to cause, by cause I mean to go from one state of affair to another one.

So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?

Yes.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am If yes, then what do you propose is 'that agent'?

You can call it God.

I can call 'what' God? What is the 'it' here?

I asked you if there was, to you, 'an agent'. You said, "Yes". So, now 'what', to you, is this 'agent', EXACTLY?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm I, however, have an argument against God.

What IS 'God', which you, allegedly, have an argument against?

The obviously illogicality and absurdness when saying, There is an 'agent', which some might call 'God', but I have an argument against this 'thing' [agent/God] may not yet be CLEAR to you, but saying that is just pure illogical AND absurd.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm Nothing is initial state as I discussed it in the previous post. Therefore, nothing to something is possible.

LOL

What EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there was some, so called, "initial state of nothing"?

In fact what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there COULD EVEN BE some "initial state of nothing"?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am PoC however does not apply to nothing

Well how was 'nothing' caused, if not by an agent?

What has caused the 'nothing' to exist, which does exist?

Nothing is the initial state as I argued in the previous post so there is no need for something to cause it.

LOL

What do you think the word 'argue' actually means?

You have NEVER logically, soundly, nor validly argued any such thing as "Nothing is the initial state".

You just said there was an "initial state of nothing". You have to say and state this because you BELIEVE "nothing to something" is not just possible but what actually happened. This is because you BELIEVE that there was 'a beginning'.

See, when and if 'you', human beings, have and hold BELIEFS, then 'you' HAVE TO say and state "things", as though they are actually true, because if you did not, then what you BELIEVE is true would just crumble to pieces.

But, just saying, or stating, "things" does IN NO WAY mean that those "things" are true, right, NOR correct.

A lot of what you have been saying, and stating, here is OBVIOUSLY NOT true, NOT right, and NOT correct.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am which means that you don't need an agent for going from one state of affair, nothing in here, to another one, something in here.

To me, you appear to make "conclusions", from the most illogical sense of reasoning.

You "argument" goes, and correct me if I am wrong here:

P1. To cause the action of going from one state of affair to another state of affair an agent is needed.
P2. Principle of causality does not apply to nothing.
C. Therefore, no agent is needed for going from nothing (in here) to something (in here).

Is this an "argument"?

If no, then what is your "argument".

Sort of. Let me change the argument a little

P1) PoC states that an agent is needed for going from one state of affair to another one

Does the causality principle REALLY state this?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm P2) PoC does not apply to nothing

Based on 'what' EXACTLY, besides your OWN BELIEF?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm C1) Therefore, the process of nothing (the first state of the affair) to something (the second state of the affair) is possible
P3) There was nothing in the starting and there is something now
C2) From C1 and P3 one can conclude that there is no need for an agent, so call God.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how the brain works in that it will say just about ANY thing to back up and support the ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, within that brain.

What else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is there is absolutely NO logical relationship in this argument.

Also, and by the way, the VERY FIRST QUESTION I asked you in this post was;
So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?

You answered;
Yes. Which can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED above.

Therefore, your CONTRADICTION now is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

To say that to transfer, or transform, from 'one state of affair' [the, so called, "first state of the affair of nothing"] to the next state of affair', [which you call, "the second state of affair of something] an "agent" is needed, but then, for you, to go on and conclude, and state, that there is NO need for an "agent", [whatever you want to call 'it'] is just to BLATANT a CONTRADICTION that I should NOT 'have to' point this out to you. Or, am I MISSING some thing here?

If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY is that?

By the way, of course If there was 'absolutely nothing', then any 'principle of causality' would not apply to 'it', absolutely nothing, but then, there would also be NO 'principle of causality' anyway. But none of this has any bearing on the fact that some 'thing' is needed to transfer, or transform, from 'nothing' to 'something'.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am But if yes, then:
Premise 1 makes sense to me.

Good to here that.

Does this mean you agree with me that an 'agent', or 'some thing' is needed to change from one state of affair to another, or the next, state of affair.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am Premise 2 is NOT based on ANY actual evidence, which I have been exposed to YET. So, if you have ANY evidence, then please bring it forward.

I have to show two things in here: A) An agent, so-called, God cannot bring something out of nothing, and B) There was nothing in the beginning.

But WHY do you 'have to' show these two things? What is the actual purpose in showing these two things? What is 'it' EXACTLY that you want to achieve here?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm A: Let assume that it is possible.

But WHY 'assume' ANY thing here?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm There was however nothing including time but God at the starting point.

What are 'you' proposing this 'God' thing is exactly here?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm The process of nothing to something is a ghange. You need time for any change. This means that you need time for the creation of time. This is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, God cannot create something out of nothing.

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that you are saying things in logically reasoned ways here?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm B: This is shown in the previous post.

This is getting beyond a joke now.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am Your conclusion is based on some ASSUMPTION that something (some thing) was created from absolutely nothing [no thing], which again I NOT been privy to ANY such evidence.

Actually, there is evidence for this. Pair of electron and positron pop out of nothing all the time. My argument also supports this too.

But HOW could they, or ANY thing else, "pop out" of 'nothing'. Considering there is ALREADY some thing, that is; thee Universe, then this means that there is nothing that something could "pop out" of.

Remember, what APPEARS to be the case may not actually be the case.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am In fact from what I have 'observed', seen and experienced, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.

Our experience is classical and does not apply to the quantum regime and also the beginning.

Speak for 'you' ONLY.

MY experience is of ALL, and NOT just of SOME.

The, so called, "classical" AND "quantum" are actually intertwined and consistent, with absolutely NO contradiction between them at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
That is argued in the previous comment.

Was it REALLY?

From what I have observed in your comments is just you expressing your OWN BELIEFS in many different ways as though they are already true, right, and correct. From what I have seen in your comments you are just 'trying' absolutely any thing, which you think, or believe, backs up and supports your already held BELIEFS.

I hope that things are clear by now.

What is ACTUALLY CLEAR, to me, is obviously NOT YET CLEAR, to you.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
That leads to regress which is not acceptable.

In 'who's' "world" is 'regress' NOT acceptable?

If 'you' or "others" can not arrive at a useful conclusion, then so be it. But through 'regression' ALL the meaningful ANSWERS become REVEALED.

By the way, what does 'regress' actually mean, to you?

Regress means that you are dealing with an endless chain of things or in other words, there is always something before or after another thing in this endless set of things.

Which ALL leads backs on to Itself. This, after all, is HOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things is REVEALED, and thus becomes CLEAR and KNOWN.

If you can NOT find the end, and the resolution, of the chain of things, then I suggest LOOKING AT these things in another way, or from another perspective.

By the way, the KEY to unlocking ALL of the, so called, "mysteries of Life" will also ALLOW 'you' to SEE, CLEARLY, what IS thee Creator, and thus thee Cause, of ALL-OF-THIS.

Learning how to find that missing link, which exists in YOUR "endless chain", will provide 'you' with thee Answer to how to prevent the "chain" from becoming "endless".

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm Well, if there was always something in the past then there is no way to reach from now to the ultimate past

Do you have ANY proof for this claim.

I will suggest to you that there IS always something in the past, and that reaching the, so called, 'ultimate past' (or Answer) is REALLY a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, which, by the way, has ALREADY been done.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm so it is impossible to reach from the ultimate past to now too.

LOL

If only you already KNEW what the, so called, 'ultimate past' IS, then, you too, would SEE just how funny this REALLY IS.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm That is way the regress is not acceptable.

The, so called, 'regress' is not acceptable to 'you', and some "others", only because of the distorted way you LOOK AT, USE, and SEE that word and its meaning.

By definition you LOOK AT, SEE, and USE that word as an 'impossibility', therefore, to you, that word, and the meaning that you give to it, HAS TO BE 'unacceptable'.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:17 am
What are them?

To me, what 'they' are, are:

1. You BELIEVE, without ANY actual PROOF, that causality only applies to material things.

2. So, EVERY thing else you write here, in this thread, is based solely on only 'THAT' what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, and NOT on what IS actually True.

3. Your ARGUMENTS end up being unsound and/or invalid because of 1 and 2, which can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post here, in this thread.

4. Your "CONCLUSION" in your opening post that your own first three sentences "also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God", is completely and utterly absurd and irrational.

5. You have CONCLUDED that "nothing to something is possible" based on nothing but your own ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS.

6. And then to 'automatically' ARRIVE AT and CONCLUDE that this then MEANS there is no need for God is just illogical to the extreme.

So, what the flaws and faults are, in your thinking here, is;
The ASSUMPTIONS you make, and the CONCLUSIONS you arrive at, come from the BELIEFS you already have.
You then use your own BELIEFS, ONLY, to back up and support your own newly formed ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which were obtained previously from ill-gotten BELIEFS in the first place.

The MAIN flaw and fault in your thinking here is;

You use your OWN ill-gotten BELIEFS to LOOK AT and SEE the "world' from, which is how you form your ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which is a form of 'circular reasoning', or what could also be called and labeled as a form of 'regression', itself.

I hope that things are clear now.

MUCH CLEARER to the readers now, thanks.

YOUR VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS are so ill-gotten, so distorted, and so misinformed, that this is the reason WHY 'you' BELIEVE what you do here.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am
True. In fact, change is not possible if something to nothing was not possible.

How does this 'logically' follow?

Something to nothing has NOT yet occurred, unless some proof is provided. But until then 'change', itself, NOT 'not possible'.

Change is not just possible but is in fact impossible to NOT happen.

There could not, logically nor empirically, exist 'not change'. But 'something to nothing' has still NOT occurred, as 'something to nothing' is just NOT logically and empirically IMPOSSIBLE as 'nothing to something' is.

That I already elaborated.

You have NOT "already elaborated" 'that'. This is because you are stating the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Unless, of course, by 'that' you mean some thing that I am entirely CLEAR OF. So, what does the word 'that' ACTUALLY refer to in your sentence here?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pm Moreover, you cannot have any empirical evidence for the existence of nothing because you cannot experience anything when there is nothing to experience.

By this statement of yours here, you CLEARLY have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what I have been saying and referring to, EXACTLY.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am To elaborate think of a change, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist since you cannot have change.

Provide examples of what X actually is and what Y actually is to SHOW how X and Y, supposedly, cannot coexist?

X and Y can be the state of a falling apple. An apple cannot coexist in both places at the same time.

So, you are talking about some 'thing', which cannot be in two places at the same time, correct?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am Therefore, X has to vanishes (what you are suggesting, something to nothing) in order to live room for Y to take place (which I am suggesting, nothing to something).

The word 'vanishing' does NOT necessarily mean 'into nothing'. The word 'vanishing' here is just referring to 'change', itself.

By that, I mean that something turns into nothing.

If a human being, for example, leaves a room, then the human being does NOT vanish.

If an apple, for example, moves from one position to another position, closer to earth itself, then the apple, also, does NOT vanish.

So, your attempt here to back up and support your claim that 'something to nothing' is possible is NOT working.

But feel FREE to 'try' again.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:23 am The order in the a universe however requires a mind.

If the order in thee, One and only, Universe, supposedly, requires a, so called, "mind", then is this "mind", the 'agent', which you refer to as being needed to 'cause' or to make happen from 'going from one state of affair to another state of affair'?

Yes. Mind is needed for order though. Otherwise, you can have a chain of nothing to something which has no order in it, complete chaos.

LOL You REALLY WILL 'try' absolutely ANY thing to back up and support YOUR OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am And, if this "mind" is what is 'needed' 'to cause', which by the way is the same as 'to create', then what does this "mind" 'need', or 'require'?

Mind doesn't need anything to create/cause.

Okay, so this 'Mind', to you, JUST EXISTS, always has and always will correct?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:20 am Who and/or what is the owner or controller of this "mind", which supposedly 'the order in the Universe' REQUIRES?

No one.

In that case, some would label this [Mind] Thing, 'God', Itself.