Maybe you could start providing claims (the more the better) that others can then go out and check? — jorndoe
You went too far with your first sentence.But there are two different kinds of time. The emergent causal thermodynamic time and the non-directional, fluctuating time state before that. It doesn't make sense to say the TD timeless state exists in time. That timeless state doesn't need time to be created. It doesn't exist in your time-framed way. It's in direct contact with heaven. Though here I maybe go a bit to far. — Hillary
I'm demonstrating that proofs of God's existence depend on questionable metaphysical assumption — Relativist
can we also find a proof of how God was created? — Skalidris
So the best we can do is to accept that there are two objective realities. — Hillary
I haven't challenged the coherence of your claims; I'm just pointing out that they still assumptions- not established fact. Therefore, they don't defeat my claims.It's a coherent, self consistent cosmology uniting different disciplines in physics into a solid, rational description of the cosmos. — Hillary
Here's a few of your metaphysical assumptions:
1. there are two different kinds of time.
2. Emergent causal thermodynamic time
3. non-directional, fluctuating time
4. timeless state
5. Existence of gods — Relativist
:fire: :100:So, we've hit a (logical) limit of sufficient reason. It's metaphysics anyway, so kind of inherently suspect.
By the way, cosmology typically considers another option: no definite earliest time, and not an infinite past duration. Call it "edge-free" if you like. This option itself seems counter-intuitive, at a first glance at least. Yet, it might be worthwhile. — jorndoe
@Hillary you ought to answer this question like your credibility depends on it because it does.The why question doesn't apply to the existence of gods, as eternal intelligences don't require another reason.
— Hillary
Why not? — 180 Proof
I haven't challenged the coherence of your claims; I'm just pointing out that they still assumptions- not established fact. — Relativist
By the way, cosmology typically considers another option: no definite earliest time, and not an infinite past duration. Call it "edge-free" if you like. This option itself seems counter-intuitive, at a first glance at least. Yet, it might be worthwhile. — jorndoe
By the way, cosmology typically considers another option: no definite earliest time, and not an infinite past duration — jorndoe
You don't understand what metaphysics means. Here's an excerpt from the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy:Only 5. is metaphysical. The first four are physical. — Hillary
You don't understand what metaphysics means. Here's an excerpt from the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy:
Metaphysics ... refers to the study of the most basic items or features of reality (ontology) or to the study of the most basic concepts used in an account of reality — Relativist
OK then, how can these "facts" be established as true?I haven't challenged the coherence of your claims; I'm just pointing out that they still assumptions- not established fact. — Relativist
They can't be established as physical facts by experiment but they are part of this universe, like virtual particles are. They are obvious physical facts. — Hillary
Understand, I don't care what you believe, but you're presenting your view as some established facts - which they aren't. If you merely want to say these assumptions of yours are reasons to reject what I'm saying, that's fine. — Relativist
Metaphysics ... refers to the study of the most basic items or features of reality (ontology) or to the study of the most basic concepts used in an account of reality — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.