Jesus, Nickolast. If that's the world you like to be part of... We are no computers! — Hillary

To be honest I am not sure about your ontology....but I am not a computer.

Hillary....learn how to tell when a post is for you.
These comments are not for you mate....
I am addressing an arrogant sophist who make ups accusations and projects them on others just to hear his voice.

I exposed your patronizing urges and your bovine manure on a discussion you never read.... and I said 'YOU ARE DONE".
Do you have unknown words in that sentence or you are still riding your ego-dragon?
You are done....finished.

Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see... — Tobias

No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles.
Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't. (Defuse thinking or Fast thinking (Daniel Kahneman).
At the end of the day we will need to Objectively evaluate every thought we make so imagination and fantasy are not necessary or sufficient or credible ways for the progress of our epistemology and philosophy.

Obvious books do not fit where your head is located... or you don't have enough light up there, try ebooks.lol
When you ever decide to address the actual technique and example I used, then send me a msg.
I am not here to satisfy your parental urges.

If you don't change your behavior...then you are done.
You can always play with Hillary sparky.

Sounds to me that you are trying to justify attempts to manipulate people by stealth. This is one reason why few of us trust politicians anymore. Even the ones who are in truth, genuinely trying to be part of the solutions. — universeness

-"Manipulate"!!! ? lol so according to your reasoning Pointing out the weakness in people's reasoning by replacing their flawed assumptions with an obvious false assumption that they care more is manipulation?
I won't answer my question because it is obvious that you are "seeing" things that aren't there.

I will help you a bit by saying this. I expose the problem of accepting assumptions without demanding objective verification by pointing to assumptions that most people would demand objective verification.
If that in your dictionaries qualifies as manipulation...sure.

For what it's worth, I believe you, but if you practice 'trickery,' then you might get to like it too much if it achieves the results you personally desire. There are only very very rare cases in my opinion when the end justifies the means. — universeness

-Why are you hiding behind generalizations? Trickery in arguments IS NOT the same with being dishonest of your demographic or your expertise. The first can easily be part of the tools of Logic and Philosophy provide, while the latter is just what cons do to gain things.
Just because both can be placed under the label of trickery...that only makes your claim a fallacy of Ambiguity, not a legit evaluation of my tactic to expose bad reasoning.

It's probably got to be on a case by case basis — universeness

-Yes and this is why I pointed out that "generalizations" are not helpful. i.e. I can construct a situation where killing an other individual can be the most moral thing to do. Does it mean that it was a trickery or the legal term (Murder) of killing other people should color all acts that have the same outcome?

-"We must do both! "
-Not really we allow ignorance and irrationality to be included especially in philosophy and we then get mad with people's ideologies....that is a fact.

I think it's better to be honest with people, especially with those who you find out are being dishonest with you. — universeness

Again that is an irrelevant statement. It doesn't support your wrong accusation of being dishonest because I exposed someone's irrational standards through a specific example on questionable values.

I don't know why do you insist with this patronizing attitude when you were ignorant of the details of my interaction and you reject to correct your critique after I provided all the necessary information of my simple technique.

I guess we are done here.

lol mr Hillary. You can not conclude to a point that isn't part of your premises!!!
And even if you did constructed a valid argument, you forget that you need to verify your premises for your argument to be sound.
Your premises are not just not sound, some are even wrong!

-"We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed."
-lol no you haven't. The theory of the big bang doesn't describe a cause. It describes what the progress of this process tells us for its initial condition.

An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause. — Hillary

-If yo declare it as such...sure. But that is an Observer dependent declaration...not an intrinsic feature of the "cause" necessarily. Again you will need to demonstrate the cause and its nature...not just assume it.

-"3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes."
-lol no! made up "non-material supernatural causes." are not explanations..not to mention logical!
You can not make up a bigger mystery and try to explain smaller mysteries. There is zero explanatory power in unknown and undefined concepts like the supernatural.
Even if we assume that we have verified the supernatural, in order to hold it as a logical explanation for existence, you would have to demonstrate its role.

-"4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence."
-And how one can demonstrate that bold assertion? I mean you haven't demonstrated whether the supernatural is possible....how can you even make claims about its role in existence???

5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist.
Unjustified conclusion which uses an undefined and unfalsifiable concept. Your "god" artifact isn't found in any of your premises....so at best, if your argument was not such a mesh and unfounded you could only point to the supernatural.

If you roleplay as a misogynist to counter Hillary's tendency to obfuscate then I think two wrongs don't make a right. — universeness

-An example that is designed to "shock", provokes thinking and expose the gaps in an argument has nothing to do with the value of "right/wrong" or "role playing" or "hate speech". Its a tool that shifts the argument made by the interlocutor to a different topic where his previous biased do not apply.
After all I was pointing out again and again that it was just an example on why arbitrary assumptions can not be used as a basis for any philosophical inquiry.

-"Anyone who is a chiseled misogynist/evanhellical/racist/ or general f***wit should be BANNED."
-Even if I dislike hate speech, your statement has some issues.
Why are we ok banning mysogynistic/racist etc statements but claims that ignore objective knowledge and Basic Logic?
I mean those are part of the reason why misogynistic and racist ideas exist on the first place. Obviously for one to conclude to such ideas doesn't posses established knowledge or lacks the tools of Logic.
So why treating the symptoms, not the cause?
But this is an other conversation. My point is that an Example, independent of it bold content doesn't make one guilty of hate speech and it doesn't mean that he is involved in "role playing".
It is only a classic demonstration of the useful tool of Argument ad Absurdum

At least the arguments are weaker than the Kalam argument, which itself is not fully convincing. — spirit-salamander

-Correct because we don't have a way to investigate an Absolute statement like "Whatever begins to exist has a cause".
We can only answer that within the rules of our universe (not the Cosmos) and based on what we currently know, which is ok but that doesn't justify any absolute conclusion...and that I guess is a problem for any theology.

And neither do I accept the burden to prove gods. You might feel the urge to prove, but something so obviously clear doesn't need proof. — Hillary

-Hillary...you are really bad in reasoning. Its not for you to decide whether your claim comes with a burden. EVery claim has a burden, whether you want to meet it or not.
I know that you don't want it but that choice of yours only renders your belief in that claim irrational.
There is nothing "obviously clear" in superstitious claims either than they qualify as irrational beliefs.
The fact that you don't want to accept the burden of proof for that claim means that you are just making excuses by saying "it doesn't need proof".
All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs.

Where do I force it on you? If you don't want to believe it's completely up to you mr. Strawman! — Hillary

-You are unable to stick to the topic mr Hillary! I am just pointing out that your conclusions are objectively irrational. This is called "critique" and it is something common in public forums.
This is what people expect when share their magical and irrational beliefs in public.
There i no way that you can force your belief on me! (well only if you can provide objective evidence.)
And there is NO way that you can force me NOT to provide my critique (only if we both were in North Korean and you were a member of the Party lol).
In simple terms people discussions and other people point out the problems in their syllogisms.
There is nothing you can do to avoid this...only if you stop posting irrational claim.

The point is, I argue from knowledge — Hillary

No , unfortunately you don't. Knowledge is by definition objective so you should be able by now to point to Good evidence for your belief.

I know how the universe works, how it came to be, what there was before the big bang, etc. — Hillary

YOu can only know what our Systematic Epistemology allow us to know. SInce I am also informed of that epistemology, gods are not mentioned or demonstrated objectively or empirically.

The only thing to logically conclude is that gods made it. — Hillary

I am not convinced you understand the meaning of the work "logically". Logic is a tool that works with facts and describes their analogies, differences equations and relations in general.
Logical fallacies are formulas of logic that allow us to identify unjustified conclusions when people jump to them without epistemic support. You are making this jump and the only "logical" aspect oin your conclusions is that of a "fallacy."
IN order for a belief to be logical it will need to be justified by objective facts.

The default state is gods plus the universe. — Hillary

That can never be default. I suggest you to study Parsimony and the Null hypothesis.
The Universe...and the gods are is an unparsimonious claim and in direct conflict with the Null hypothesis , a tool that allows us to identify the Default position in a belief.
You need to revisit your arguments because they are in direct conflict with Basic Logic.

Basic logic is great! So when I start from the default state as being true, I don't need to prove it. — Hillary

lol...hahahahahahahahaha. In order to define the Default Position you need to know how the Null Hypothesis work.
The Null Hypothesis dictates that we SHOULD nullify our claims thus remove elements in our claims that aren't demonstrated or accepted objectively and work on the falsification of our initial nullification.
The fact is that we can not objectively verify any gods(this is why we are having debates on the topic) and we will need significant results to add this value in our nullified default position.

When you add things in your default position that aren't observed or accepted by everyone you are introducing a value in it so that can never be the Null Hypothesis.
So your default position should go like this.
There isn't a connection (significant value) between A. Existence B. God until we can objectively falsify our initial rejection through objective evidence.
If you try to equate the Existence of the Universe with god...that is a fallacy(fallacy of ambiguity, false equivalency).
At least we now understand why you hold those irrational beliefs...You understanding of Logic is really bad.

↪Relativist
I think Nick's point may be that one is not convinced there are good reasons to accept the proposition that gods exist. This is not the same thing as saying they do not exist or are false. — Tom Storm

Thank you Tom. Acceptance and Rejection inform people of my position towards a claim.
For them to know the reason they will need to ask an additional question.
To assume the reason from my rejection, is a fallacy (Strawman).

(Legally a person is found not guilty which does not mean they did not do it, only that the case for their guilt was not made.) — Tom Storm

Again, you are Correct.

I would say this model amounts to being an atheist regarding your belief, but an agnostic in terms of your knowledge. This a position held by a lot of atheists I know, including me. — Tom Storm

Me too. I don't need an indefensible burden...no matter how desperate mr Hillary is to force that belief on me.

You claim they don't exist. Then prove it. You can't. — Hillary

No I only point out that you are an irrational individual for accepting god claims that you can not Objectively demonstrate to be true.
I never accept the burden of the opposite claim.
Do you also have issues with Basic Logic mam?

What I reject is your terminology. I explained what I meant, and you seem to insist I use the words the way you choose to use them. — Relativist

You shouldn't and you need to understand that when we don't accept a claim from becoming our belief, our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action.
accept
Opposite verb
1.consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
Opposite refuse, reject, turn, down
Those two terms (accept reject) CAN ONLY inform us if one believes a claim or not....NOT if he thinks it is false or not. As you said your self "not convinced" can also be a reason why we reject a claim!

Now when , according to your words, youreserve belief to a claim, have you accepted it? No ! so what have you done? You rejected it from becoming your belief not because you think it is wrong, or not true, but because you are not convinced to proceed to a judgment.

You need to understand that by saying "I reject that claim" you can only know whether I accept it or not! That statement doesn't inform you whether I think it is false or not, untrue or not. You know what I did to that claim....not not the REASON I did it.


-"

Sure, but the standards jurors apply to verdicts do not prevent a juror from privately forming a belief based on a lower standard. — Relativist

"
-Sure but you can never know what he believes by just knowing that he rejected the accusations of the prosecutor!!! right? You committed the same error when you equated " I reject A" = "I believe A is false"!

In everyday life, we form most of our beliefs on a much lower standard than that. — Relativist

-Correct, I agree, but that doesn't change that acceptance and rejection ONLY describe how we react to a claim and says nothing about the reasons behind our reaction.
Your objection about what a juror might believe and how we evaluate beliefs in our everyday life do not justify your assumptions that any rejection is based on the opposite belief.Can you see that problem?

Consider a civil trial in which jurors are instructed to base judgment on a preponderance of evidence (i.e.slightly more evidence in one direction). Do you allow them to form a private belief on that basis? If so, you should allow them to form a private belief on the same standard in a criminal trial. A private belief needn't correspond to the jury instruction. Belief formation doesn't work that way. — Relativist

-Again what you allow to a jury in a trial with different standards of evidence is irrelevant to the basic rule of logic. I don't accept/I reject A can only inform you on whether I accept or reject A.
It can never tell you why I reject A. IT can never tell you if I believe it is wrong, or insufficient or untrue.
Do we agree on that.?
Addressing a claim /point at a time is how we avoid fallacies.
When you say to you accept the claim that god exists and I say no...I just informed you that I reject that claim from becoming by belief.
If you say "so you believe that the god claim is false" then you are making a Strawman arguement, because your initial question "Do you accept the claim that god exists" and "Do believe the god doesn't exist" Are two different claims. You are committing a false dichotomy and that leads you to your strawman and you demand a Burden of Proof from a claim I never made.

Seriously, this is Logic 101....it can't get more basic than that!

First of all your bank account can not be as much a proof that you are no billionaire, as that gods exist. You will need objective evidence either than your bank account to demonstrate the existence of magical agents.
Now you need to be honest and avoid strawmanning other people's position.
I am constantly saying that you don't have evidence, that believing in gods is irrational not wrong that you use fallacies to conclude to gods.
So why are you asking me to prove something I have never claimed ??????
When did I say "gods don't exist".
Again I am pointing out that you are using false equivalencies, arguments from ignorance, special pleadings and poisoning the well fallacies to promote your irrational belief in invisibile magic agents.

I know...its part of the problem.

So you don't understand why we should address a single claim...not its opposite?

You c
You can either reject a claim either because you are not convinced, or because you are convinced of the opposite.
That is not defined by stating your rejection!
i.e. By rejecting the claim (god exists) that makes me an Atheist...not an Antitheist.(Hard Atheist).
In order to be an Antitheist, I must accept the opposite claims (God's do not exist).

When a jury finds the defendant not guilty , it doesn't mean that they think he is innocent. They only examine whether the prosecution can meet the burden of proving him guilty. We don't demand from the defendant to prove his innocence because the burden is on those who make the claim (accusation). We don't simultaneously examine two different claims (innocent and gulity) because not proving A doesn't mean B!!!!!!

So you also don't understand why I don't accept/reject A doesn't ≠ I think A is wrong????

A judgment in a criminal trial is a bit different. I may believe a dependent guilty based on it seeming more likely than not, but acquit because there is reasonable doubt. IOW, I can believe something without being absolutely certain. — Relativist

-No it isn't. Don't focus on why we demand to demonstrate guiltiness beyond reasonable doubt (its for obvious reasons....the freedom and life of the defendant are in stake).
Focus that we ONLY address guiltiness (guilty/not guilty), we don't address an additional claim (innocent).
This is the error you do when you introduce "falseness" .
My acceptance or rejection of a claim addresses ONLY my belief towards a specific claim.
It Doesn't address the reasons why I reject it or the opposite claim!
The minimum requirement is to NOT be convinced....not to be convinced of a different claim (to be false).
This is a really basic rule. Its how we avoid false dichotomies..!!!

If I accept a proposition, that means I believe it true. — Relativist

-Correct.

-"Rejection means I believe it false."
-No it doesn't. Rejection means that you are not convinced of the truth value of the claim.
Think of the jury standard. The jury finds the defended guilty or not guilty but they don't address innocence because its a completely different claim.
Reserving belief in a claim means that you don't accept the claim in question. You reject it until evidence can warrant belief.
I dont accept/reject A ≠ I think A is wrong. ITs an logical error to address two different claims based on a single rejection.

:100:

-"Not true. One can reserve judgment. e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa"
-Rejection is not a judgment (whether a claim is true or not true). Reserving judgment means that you don't accept (reject) a claim that isn't supported by evidence.

-"e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa."
So the claim is "there is life on Europa". You reject that claim until it can be justified by evidence.

On the other hand, I do not reserve judgment as to the existence of gods. I believe these things don't exist. — Relativist

Sure , but in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.
You either have to accept or reject a claim without the need to declare it wrong (judge it) because you are then addressing a different claim.

So why do you use Objective evidence to verify your economic state...but you reject them in other existential claims?? Special pleading.....right?

You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. You either live in Paris or you don't.

The important thing is if gods exist in someone's experience. If so, gods exist. — Hillary

-lol not really.... Do you use the standards to verify whether you are a billionaire or not ? lol

To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument. — L'éléphant

I am not sure you understand Atheism or what a circular argument is.
Atheism rejects all known god claims because they have failed to meet their burden...that's all.

A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. We look and that is what we see. Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself. Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion. — Gregory A

-"A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid."
-A god hypothesis requires Objective facts for the default position of atheism to be rejected.

-"We look and that is what we see."
-That is a faith based statement. You need to verify theism objectively for atheism to become invalid.

-"Atheism as a non-belief in something never shown to exist is intangible in itself."
-Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden. Its the Default Position defined by the Null Hypothesis of Logic.

-" Atheism is if anything a product of the Bible, a rejection of religion."
-God concepts existed well before and outside bible. Atheism doesn't just reject the gods proposed in the bible, but by all known supernatural religions.

Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position. — Gregory A

-Gregory...you haven't studied the topic, haven't you!
Theism promotes claims as explanations...it doesn't explain anything(Made up mysterious explanatiosn don't have explanatory power).
Gregory! Atheism challenges the truth value of those explanations.
Atheism is the rejection of the unfounded claims made by theism! IT isn't its job to pretend to have explanations like theism does!

Naturalism is the counter-position to theism, atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground. — Gregory A

Gregory!!!!(Philosophical)Naturalism is the counter-position of Supernaturalism. You are doing a category error. While Theism is part of Supernaturalism and Atheism only focus on the rejection of the theistic claim.
Gregory!!!!Atheism doesn't address the supernatural in general. There are Atheists that embrace supernatural explanations that do not include theism.!!!(Buddhists, Raelians, New agers etc etc)

Gregory!!!! Atheism doesn't occupy any non existent middle grounds! IT a reasonable position one holds on an unfounded belief. EIther we accept or reject a belief claim...there is No middle ground and Atheism clearly holds one from those two possible positions.

The majority of the world's scientists, academics, etc. are not atheists accepting religion for what it is, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria an example. — Gregory A

-Gregory!!!! you are making a fallacious arguments from false authority. The metaphysical beliefs of humans who happen to work in Scientific field are irrelevant to the evaluation of those beliefs!
Gould was right , Religions Should be non-overlapping magisteria, but unfortunately, religions tend to make claims about the physical realm and this is when we are able totest them by doing science.

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists. — Gregory A

-Gregory!!!! lol....validity has nothing to do with the reason why a position exists! People make unfounded supernatural claims and other people through reason are free to evaluate them and reject them as irrational!

The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right. — Gregory A

-Gregory!!!! your statements are nonsensical. The validity of the rejection of Theism comes from Logic. The Null Hypothesis,the failure of the postion to meet its burden of proof, the unfalsifiability of the theistic position and the unparsimonious nature of it. Naturalism is irrelevant to the Default Position of Atheism!

Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc. — Gregory A

You shouldn't ! You should use logic and reject theism as an irrational, not as a wrong belief.

Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left). — Gregory A

Your claims become weirder and weirder. Atheism has nothing to do with free speech. After all in many countries of this world you can lose your life if you say openly you are an Atheist.
-Gregory!!!! you need to go back on the drawing board...find out what's bugging you and construct real arguments....Your emotions you have for Atheists are not arguments.

No where in the "argument"

The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a creator that is often used by theist. it is most notably used by William Lane Craig. I think this argument is a false argument and I will try to explain why here.

First, what is the argument?
Premise 1: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
Premise 2: "The universe began to exist"
Conclusion: "The universe has a cause" — Magnus

The Kalam arguments can not be used to argue in favor of god(s) .
The concept of god isn't mentioned in the premises or the conclusion so not an argument about god....but about the universe and its state of existence.

Are you familiar with the realization that we don't have wars between western military powers since nuclear weapons first came to the picture?

It could have been such that the universe started in reverse at infinity. But it didn't. — Hillary

No. You don't know that and the concept of infinity ...isn't a starting point.

↪Nickolasgaspar

It's a very old internet story, isn't it.
You can be unfortunate enough to be exchanging/communicating with a seriously sinister character or an organised group with their own fixed, perhaps even nefarious agenda.
Imho, Hillary is not in either of those categories and I think there are more sinister posters on this site than him but I do also think their numbers are very few. — universeness

I will agree with you . He doesn't seem to be that bad. I am starting to think that he actually believes everything he writes!

Oh, sorry! Were you enjoying your roleplay as a female irrational polytheist with Nickolasgaspar? — universeness

This explains why he wasn't triggered that much by my "example". I rejected all his claims based on my Assumption that "women are inferior to men".
He demanded from me to justify this assumption and he tasted his own poison.
Since he feels like he doesn't have to justify his god assumptions...I don't really have to justify mine.
Now that I know he isn't a female....I need to find a new "excuse/assumption" for rejecting your unfounded assumptions!

The "plurality" of a claim(ad populum) doesn't benefit the epistemic or philosophical value of it. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, it does. If not theoretically, then practically. In science we see a theory as accepted when there is a consensus. We don't require 100% acceptance but a reasonable threshold. And I wouldn't call it "ad populum" because we require the consensus among experts not the populus. — ArmChairPhilosopher

-Again you are promoting a fallacy. Consensus is not the criterion but the "symptom" of a successful theory. The epistemic value IS there and consensus follows...not the other way around. The popularity of a claim is irrelevant to its epistemic foundations.

There is no Null hypothesis is philosophy. And as long as we don't know if we have to tackle the god problem with science or philosophy, we can't require to use the Null hypothesis. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Of course there is. Its like saying there is no logic in Philosophy....
The Null hypothesis is useful to evaluate your default position and avoid unwarranted assumptions in your philosophy.

-"You did when you assumed that god is an ideal."
-I ddin't have to assume that!God concepts describe idealistic agents.(all knowing all powerful, merciful etc etc etc etc etc). My remark was descriptive. I didn't assume gods existed or not, I didn't assume they have roles in reality or not...I only pointed out the only nature we are aware of.

-"

Exactly. And since I only get contradictory claims from the believers, I don't know how to address the claims. What I do know is that the claims are inconsistent. And I can't conclude that they must be talking about different things as one of the claims is that there is only one god. — ArmChairPhilosopher

"
-And this is why we can only address the only thing we are aware of.... the actual concept in those claims! How can you ever go beyond the concept when you have nothing to work with, zero facts zero objective evidence zero methods capable to detect and verify the supernatural etc etc.

You're not even able to understand a tiny part of my cosmology. Let alone the big picture. Sorry Nickolas, but you will continue to live in the dark till you die... :lol: — Hillary

-guilty as charged! I do tend to use the phrase ...I don't know....when I don't!

I can't help it they don't understand my cosmology and I have no intention telling you about it! — Hillary

_Why i feel like a dodged a bullet?

I have better means than telling that on a philosophy forum! — Hillary

-that's even better try a new age or a theological forum!

-" Only some can share my cosmological secrets"
-Pls find them...outside from the Philosophical circle.! After all secrets and knowledge do get along well!

-"You think I'm gonna tell it to everyone? There are a few professors on my side, and they offer better help than you or physics forums do, who only are interested in the status quo."
-We don't want any one to steal our Nobel Prize! right!!

On the contrary! It provides the most sound arguments. — Hillary

I am not convinced you understand the meaning of the word soundness...

-"Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about! "
As you said....claims. Now you will need to demonstrate their soundness.

there is nothing there in these ideas of yours.
They are philosophically and scientifically null, reminiscences of a era when humans saw agency, intention and purpose everyone.
Only when we removed agency and teleology form our philosophy ,we enabled science to experience an epistemic run away success for more than 500 years.
Your assumptions are known to be failed for centuries. Nobody (except some crackpots like Sheldrake and ) uses them in the Academia any more.

I know your story now "Hillary". Your ideas are not welcomed in the scientific field...so you are taking your revenge in philosophical forums.

So your educated guess agrees with my first impression about him.
I am not sure that one can use so many fallacies in a sentence and not be a troll....but I could be wrong! Thanks for the info.

But the point is that all motion in the universe could be opposite to the motion we observe. — Hillary

-good luck providing evidence for that assumptions.

-" Why is the begin situation situated at the begin instead of at the end? "
-Not all sentences with a "why" in from and a question-mark at the end qualify as serious questions.

Particles will experience the same forces, the universe shrinks, and wavefunction collapses are reversed. — Hillary

-This is the quality of philosophy you have when you ignore the whole epistemic framework on why processes unroll at one direction....

-"Litterally all motion could happen in opposite direction. But it doesn't."
-no because you are forgetting essential elements in those processes....

. Saying that there is no place for questioning why this is the case closes the road to comprehension. — Hillary

-No it only opens question that have already poisoned the well with the fallacy of teleology..but I know logic and soundness is not part of your philosophy....