You're free to! There is jealousy, career-loss fear, inability and incapability to understand, competition. Where in academy did you stay? — Hillary

Like every profession.

In an academy where nothing happens yes. But look if you put a new theory up. A theory with great potentiality but against established standard... — Hillary

I do not agree.

You have a naive picture of academic climate. Mostly it's thunder, rain, and storm, with occasional sunshine. — Hillary

No. I have been in academia. Many of us listen and respect each other.

Even a drunken man is objective from his own point of view. — Angelo Cannata

Funny. I like that.

1. Existing at all times means it never DIDN'T exist — Relativist

Yes, why worries about infinity are irrelevant.

Philosophy is more than arguing! — Hillary

Well, if it is about watching videos leave me out.

You disappointed me as a philosopher. :sad: — SpaceDweller

How is watching a video doing philosophy? I thought it was about presenting an argument?

See video and problem of Hillbert's hotel — SpaceDweller

Not going to. Fare thee well.

Therefore we agree universe has a cause, that is a beginning? — SpaceDweller

I don't see this as the two options.

saying that there is no beginning is logically impossible. — SpaceDweller

Please explain. There is nothing inherently contradicting.

infinity indeed does not exist - it's unreal, and so is the idea of infinite universe. — SpaceDweller

I never asserted the idea of an infinite universe.

Time does not predicate existence
— Jackson

Meaning? — Hillary

To predicate is to say all is true or universal. But all events are not merely time based.

What do you mean by time is "intermediate", we are talking about number of past events.
how many past events (of the universe) are there? — SpaceDweller

Events don't have to be quantified by an ordering system. So I never would say infinity exists.

how do you add to infinity please?
or how do you add an event to infinite amount of events? — SpaceDweller

I think of time as indeterminate here. Not "infinite" but "indeterminate."

3. therefore there is no space for any further events — SpaceDweller

I get stuck here. Can you explain what the problem is?

If the universe did not have a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But that’s a problem because the existence of an actually infinite number of past events leads to absurdity. It’s metaphysically impossible.

Time does not predicate existence. Too vague? I can expand.

Which is absurd and here is why: — SpaceDweller

Can you tell me? Not watching the video.

Even an eternal universe is created. — Hillary

No.

If the universe is not caused nor self-caused then what is it? eternal? — SpaceDweller

No beginning, no origin.

A finite past with initial conditions entails existing at all times. — Relativist

Please say more. For example, what do you mean by "finite past?"

Why you don't agree? I haven't seen a rational argument? Just curious. Because the universe has some intrinsic intelligence? Which doesn't need gods? — Hillary

Yes. No such thing as dumb matter.

It's caused not by itself but it has a reason for existence. — Hillary

Like I said, I don't agree. No need to repeat ourselves.

because self-causation is unreal. — SpaceDweller

If the universe was not caused then it is not self--caused.

Because a dumb material — Hillary

Have consistently denied your characterization. Nothing more to say.,

eternal intelligence doesn't need explanation — Hillary

Why?

Naturalism implies the world is not an intended consequence, so there's no reason for it. — Relativist

And saying the universe is a consequence only displaces the same question--Why is there God.

Are scientific groups closer to wisdom than philosophic grounds? — Joshs

I don't think so.

but what is your argument for eternal universe. — SpaceDweller

Why does the universe have to be caused? Not rhetorical. We know there is a universe, so why does it have to have a cause.

Reality didn't come into existence. If material reality is the totality of reality, then it exists uncaused, and at all times. The notion that it had to "come into existence" is incoherent, because "coming into existence" entails a time at which it didn't exist, followed by a time at which it exists. — Relativist

Good, well said. Agree with that.

How convenient! I wrote, perceptions are no isolated entities. The are embedded in a larger brain structure. Naked perception does not exist. Perceptions are a theoretical false construction, a fallacy, if you like. They are a hallucination themselves. — Hillary

You are using "hallucination" in a non-standard way. Cannot discuss the issue if you are making up definitions.

Sense perceptions are no isolated well-defined objects that have a standard form. — Hillary

Did not understand that.

I guess it means no then, thanks for spamming this topic. — Skalidris

Quite the reverse. Someone who is arguing with no point is.

You see continuity where there is none. I.e., yiu think what you see is true. But it isn't. Seems damned much like hallucinating. Likewise, we hallucinate the Earth rotating. But this could be a hallucination. The universe can be said to rotate around the Earth as well. According to general relativity, all motion is relative, even rotation (I know Wikipedia tells you differently, but if you think deeper, this is the case). — Hillary

Hallucinations are distortions of sense perception. That is not what I was talking about.

I wasn't trying to make a point yet, — Skalidris

This is a good time to do so.

Okay, can you give me an example of one of their theories that have scientific grounds ? — Skalidris

I lost the point you were making.

And analytic philosophy uses a few concept of formal logic but it certainly doesn't try to gather data from science as grounds for their theories. — Skalidris

It does.

Like I said, a hallucination. — Hillary

No, that is not what "hallucination" means.

nothing doesn't even require a creator, because it's not a thing. — SpaceDweller

I clearly am rejecting the concept that the world was created.

The fact that never nothing come from nothing is proof of itself. don't you think? — SpaceDweller

I do not think that.

One way to think about nothingness is to associate it with randomness. Things occur without without being caused by prior events.

But I don't see how his argument is against "nothing comes from nothing" — SpaceDweller

My argument is that is has never been proven. It is just a tenet.