I don't really understand what a circular time dimension is. But then again, I never took a physics class. — Purple Pond
But that wouldn't be living after you die. It's just you reliving your life. (If that's even possible). — Purple Pond
Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating." — Frank Apisa
You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong. — Frank Apisa
Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY? — Frank Apisa
I think the whole idea of life after death is incoherent. Death is the end of your life, so there can't be life after death. There's no beyond the end. Maybe you mean you can survive the death of your body? You'd first have to convince us all that there is a you above and beyond the body, aka the soul. — Purple Pond
The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS. — Frank Apisa
Would you recognise it if they had? No. So is it worthwhile having a discussion with you about it? No. — S
Sorry, I should have said reality instead of universe. For now, recent observations rule out the probabilty of a Big Crunch because it doesn't appear that there's enough density to fight back the expansion. I know, bummer... — Vince
And what would happen after the crunch? A Big Bounce? Time reversing? They all imply boundaries, I'm only talkling about a smooth causal reality loop. — Vince
I believe that without doing some serious math, we just can't answer the big questions. — Vince
Imagine you're in a causality feedback loop universe. Causality is only necessary for the guy in the loop, not for the loop to exist. And your chances of living after death are 100%! — Vince
There would be an infinite chain of causes. Your reasoning is completely erroneous because it begins by assuming a first cause, and then imagines that it is gone, yet you nonsensically refer to the absence of a second cause, and a third cause, and so on. There was never any first or second or third to begin with, just an infinite chain. Not nothing, not a first, second, and third from a first start, just an infinite chain. — S
Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your first sentence, you jump straight into a fallacious begging the question by assuming a first cause. That's why you're not being reasonable. — S
Yes, but repeating doesn't solve the problem. — S
"We can deduce that the first cause is timeless.
— Devans99
How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. — Christoffer
I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It is not the first time that I heard that criticism. I first read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy about ten years ago. — S
I have also criticised your argument regarding the ruling out of an infinite regress, as you well know. — S
Aristotle was incompetent. — whollyrolling
Ah, okay. Confirmation bias, you mean? It's not a bad argument when it's about God. — S
You need belief outside of the conclusion in order to attach what that first cause was — Christoffer
You might want to study philosophy from Aquinas and forward to really get the depth of how simplistic his argument really is — Christoffer
They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God." — Frank Apisa
Ah, okay. So everything is water. — S
Oh. But isn't that what you do with a first cause? You go: one, two, miss a few, it can't go for infinity for no apparent reason, so there must be a first cause! — S
No, I'm not pedantic, you need a solid ground for your argument. How can you demand us to accept a theory that is flawed? That is not philosophy, that is an evangelical sermon of your opinions. — Christoffer
Your allowance does not support 50% to be a number that is true. Your allowance is not grounds to support your premise. Your allowance is your belief, nothing more and nothing that can make your premises true out of what you allow. That number is your invention, nothing more. — Christoffer
That is 1 dimension. 2 has X and Y, 3 has X, Y and Z. 4 becomes a tesseract (hypercube), hypothetical string theory allows up to 11 dimensions. The possibilities punch holes in your logic by being possibilities alone, ignored by you and your argument. — Christoffer
No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game.
And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT — Christoffer
So you need it to be true, therefore, your argument is invalid as your premise is assumed to be true before proven true. — Christoffer
Prove that linear and circular is the ONLY concepts to be true before you can claim the possibility of more to exist — Christoffer