Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god." — Frank Apisa
The point I'm making is that we know that the statement:
(there are no Gods) OR (there are God(s))
Is true.
One seems to be true. — Devans99
So scientific investigation should allow for both possibilities. There is a heavy inclination towards atheism in science that I feel is biasing the direction of investigation. Hardly anyone puts forward theories that are compatible with God... so there is a chance we are collectively heading up the wrong alley. — devans
There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT.
That kind of insistence seems to me to be at the heart of so much discord on planet Earth. I wish we could get past it. — Frank Apisa
If those "blind guesses" are correct, does it matter that at least one person insists on them? — Shed
If you look at the difference between past eternity and future eternity, the the first is a completed infinity whilst the 2nd is not. — Devans99
If the present is considered to be the origin of one's spatio-temporal coordinate space, then there is no reason to consider past eternity to be any more complete than future eternity. — sime
The same is also true of certain models of cosmology, for example the Hawking-Hartle Model that does not single out any point of space-time as being the unique causal-origin. — sime
Presentism posits 'only now always existed'... — Devans99
...so all forms of it require an infinite regress, — Devans99
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*. — Devans99
An odd way to phrase it - 'always existed'? That's not how presentism is typically defined — Luke
What infinite regress? Where is your reasoning or argument for this "requirement" of presentism? — Luke
'Only now exists' and 'there is a start of time' are incompatible views — Devans99
(IE what then caused the start of time?) — Devans99
'Only now exists' and 'there is a start of time' are incompatible views
— Devans99
How? — Luke
I thought you were arguing the opposite — Luke
Why can't presentism have this too? — Luke
Why must something other than 'only now exists'? — Luke
If there was a start of time, there must be something 'other' to cause the start of time. And that 'other' must be timeless. — Devans99
Only the present moment exists (P)
Past, present and future moments all exist (E)
There is either a start to P or not, and there is equally either a start to E or not. Why should this count for or against one but not the other? — Luke
Your reference to an infinite regress appears to reveal your assumption that presentism entails not only the existence if the present moment but also the existence of the past. But that is not presentism. — Luke
Your reference to an infinite regress appears to reveal your assumption that presentism entails not only the existence if the present moment but also the existence of the past. But that is not presentism. — Luke
But if there is a start of P, what came before it, bearing in mind nothing else exists apart from P? — Devans99
The fact that the past HAS existed means there WAS an infinite regress. The past does not need to still exist... even if the past does not exist then we still know there WAS an infinite regress — Devans99
don't know, maybe your timeless creator of time came before it. What came before E if it has a start? — Luke
Presentism makes no claims about the existence of the past. It is your assumption that the past has existed. Only the present moment exists according to presentism. — Luke
Then that would mean it is not presentism - because something timeless IE other than only now exists. — Devans99
Presentism claims that 'only now exists'. That can be qualified as a statement that is:
- True for all time.
- Not true for all time.
If you take the first assumption above which I thought all presentist did, — Devans99
Presentism and eternalism are about temporal existence. A creator outside of temporal existence doesn't count as a temporal existent. — Luke
"All time" for a presentist is only the present moment. If a presentist were to also believe in the existence of the past and the future, then they would be an eternalist. — Luke
What would the nature of a creator outside temporal existence be? — Devans99
There is a distinction:
- You believe the past exists
is different from
- You believe the past did exist. — Devans99
.And if the past did exist, the conclusion is that the past must have always existed, IE no start of time — Devans99
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.