Its a fact that the most obvious arguments were documented first in human history. And Occam's Razor says to prefer obvious arguments. So only an idiot would ignore the old time philosophers. The first cause argument remains unchallenged.

There is no calculation behind it; it is an estimate. In the absence of statistical support; estimates are the best one can do. — Devans99

How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estimate? You need solid numbers for calculating the probability, but you use only an estimate, so your probability is based on variable estimates about something without any data in support of it. Are you unable to see how hollow this calculation is?

Eternalist time can have two possible topologies: linear or circular. I have no data on which is more prevalent, so it is statistically correct to assume 50%: — Devans99

You cannot assume 50% because no data support either to have that number as a probability. You fail at basic math here. I can add any kind of fantasy concept and change the numbers: tesseract linearity, there... now you have 33,3333333333333% and your calculation fails. You have no data in support of your probability, your logic fails.

That is the statistically correct answer. — Devans99

You wouldn't even pass basic math.

It is not as far fetched as you think, see for example: — Devans99

A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you cannot use that as a scientific theory for a probability calculation. In order to have a probability of something, you need to have facts in support of it. A hypothesis is not enough. You are using educated guesses that haven't been confirmed in order to make a probability calculation for a solid conclusion.

It's so flawed it's infantile. Where did you get your basic education?

What are you referring to? Provide a link. — S

I refer back to my own reference post of an argument that is 50% probable to be true based on a hypothesis that is part of my agnostic ideals. There, a bulletproof philosophical conclusion worthy of Aquinas!

I use Schick razors, they're obviously better than Occam's. I believe I've said this to you before, butt I'll iterate--I don't ignore things, I ponder and then disregard them, they go into the recycle bin, ignoring things can be equated with idiocy, sure, and laziness, whether they're obvious or not.

How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estimate? You need solid numbers for calculating the probability, but you use only an estimate, so your probability is based on variable estimates about something without any data in support of it. Are you unable to see how hollow this calculation is? — Christoffer

Well the impact of the 1% estimates on the total estimate is small so I felt an estimate was OK. We all know the probability of those three is very low so I choose 1% - did not think it would be controversial.

You cannot assume 50% because no data support either to have that number as a probability. You fail at basic math here. I can add any kind of fantasy concept and change the numbers: tesseract linearity, there... now you have 33,3333333333333% and your calculation fails. You have no data in support of your probability, your logic fails. — Christoffer

You cannot just make up anything for the topology of a dimension - it is either open (linear) or closed (circular) - there are no other options.

Again, I re-iterate the general principle, if there is no data for a sub-proposition, then assuming 50% is statistically the correct thing to do.

I have to assume I have not articulated my arguments clearly enough I guess. — Devans99

Ok, so you will commit to your own in-articulation? Thats why people are disagreeing with you?
I couldn't help but notice that Christoffer gave you precisely what you asked for, he pointed out exactly where you are lacking foundation for your argument. Why did you ignore it?

I've explained my reasons why I disagree with Christoffer above...

so I choose 1% - did not think it would be controversial. — Devans99

Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period.

You cannot just make up anything for the topology of a dimension - it is either open (linear) or closed (circular) - there are no other options. — Devans99

I can't, I thought I could do what you do... invent a number out of thin air through pure convenience.
Outside of that, maybe you should actually invest time in investigating physics and discover that linear and circular isn't binary choices for explaining time. But your the amateur astronomer, who are any of us to argue with Devan Aquinas?

Again, I re-iterate the general principle, if there is no data for a sub-proposition, then assuming 50% is statistically the correct thing to do. — Devans99

If there is no scientific data, you cannot conclude anything outside of belief. I wonder what mods define as low-quality posts, I would say that this is it.

I've explained my reasons why I disagree with Christoffer above... — Devans99

We're not done yet, convince me with your superior math skills and superior knowledge of physics before claiming a win of the dialectics. Or are you applying circular time to your circular reasoning?

Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period. — Christoffer

You are being pedantic.

Outside of that, maybe you should actually invest time in investigating physics and discover that linear and circular isn't binary choices for explaining time — Christoffer

My argument first allows for the need to eternalism to be true as a prerequisite as well. So assuming time is a dimension, you claim it is of some shape that is NOT EITHER open (linear) or closed (circular). Prove it.

Well, some overlap here as we are all replying swiftly. You can sort it out with him, I recommend you try and stay open minded as he is telling you exactly where you have erred
Ok, so you didnt respond to my question. You are willing to commit to your own in-articulation as the reason everyone is disagreeing with you?

I guess I cannot be communicating clearly enough.

You are being pedantic. — Devans99

He is not. His statement is vitally important and on point. Ignore his insulting tone and recognise the substance in what he is saying. You really don’t “choose” in math, you calculate.
Your misunderstanding of this is what everyone is talking about when they say your foundation is not valid. If you have not calculated something in math, you are just making it up out of thin air.

Its possible you arent articulating well, but it might also be the case that you are the one thats wrong here...couldnt it?

You are being pedantic. — Devans99

No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game.
And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT

My argument first allows for the need to eternalism to be true as a prerequisite as well. — Devans99

So you need it to be true, therefore, your argument is invalid as your premise is assumed to be true before proven true.

So assuming time is a dimension, you claim it is of some shape that is NOT EITHER open (linear) or closed (circular). Prove it. — Devans99

Prove that linear and circular is the ONLY concepts to be true before you can claim the possibility of more to exist. If you can't do that, how can you conclude there to be only those two without any doubt and how can you assign 50% probability to either without any data whatsoever?

Prove your premises first. Seriously, your reasoning is infantile.

Your premises need to be true, not assumptions or guesses.
Your conclusion needs to be a probability based on true premises or a conclusion that is absolutely true based on absolutely true premises. If you do not, you fail at basic philosophical reasoning. So far, all premises are based on your assumptions, beliefs and what you want reality to be.

Seriously, how far should we go before you understand that your argument is invalid?

But we are talking about the difference between 0% an 1% - not a huge impact on the calculation.

And whilst I'm using math, I'm doing induction. Its inherently about estimation. My whole post is about estimation. There are some questions for which there are no precise mathematical answers to; this is where estimation comes in.

And whilst I'm using math, I'm doing induction. — Devans99

Induction doesn't mean your conclusion or premises can be fantasies. Induction means a probable conclusion based on true premises. You have no true premises, period.

No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game.
And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT — Christoffer

Its a high level estimate only, you are being pedantic.

So you need it to be true, therefore, your argument is invalid as your premise is assumed to be true before proven true. — Christoffer

No I allowed a 50% probability of eternalism being true.

Prove that linear and circular is the ONLY concepts to be true before you can claim the possibility of more to exist — Christoffer

A dimension can be visualised as a line. A line only has two possible topologies, open or closed.

No, you don’t guess and draw conclusions based on those guesses. You look for more data. If there is none, then you draw no conclusions. You are committing the “argument from ignorance fallacy”

It is a high level estimate, meant as the basis to start a discussion, I was not presenting it as the finished goods, analysed to the nth level of detail or anything.

Part of the purpose of the post is to collect more data on the proposition by discussing it.

Its a high level estimate only, you are being pedantic. — Devans99

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.

No I allowed a 50% probability of eternalism being true. — Devans99

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.

A dimension can be visualised as a line. A line only has two possible topologies, open or closed. — Devans99

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.

You presented it as an argument. You used an invalid premiss. This has been pointed out.
Anyway, my parting comment: you have narrowed it down to either your own in- articulation or that you are wrong. I suggest you test each of those, see which one seems more likely.

You cannot just make up anything... — Devans99

Oh. But isn't that what you do with a first cause? You go: one, two, miss a few, it can't go on for infinity for no apparent reason, so there must be a first cause!

"Estimation" isn't synonymous with "imagination".

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

It is not a theory, it is an estimate. There is a difference. Estimates are part of everyday life; we do it all the time. Why do you have a problem with estimation? Some questions are not answerable logically, mathematically or statistically so we have to estimate.

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

My allowance of 50% was based on a head versus heart argument I gave above. I am personally divided over whether eternalism is true and the 50% reflects that uncertainty.

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

But each dimension individually is a line - it has no further structure - so no further variations are possible.

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

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic.

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic. — Devans99

But I don't. I don't assume that the universe was created, let alone created by magic.

Whereas my mockery version of your argument, which resembles the logic of a little child, is actually pretty much your actual argument.

It cannot have existed forever in time. Thats impossible as Thomas Aquinas showed and I have shown many times on this forum.

Why do you have a problem with estimation? — Devans99

Because you use it as a fundamental foundation for your entire theory of inductive probability. A foundation that would require a true premise, meaning, it requires it to be more than an estimate out of your belief. But your use of it for the conclusions at the end of your argument needs for it to be a fact, which it isn't.

My allowance of 50% was based on a head versus heart argument I gave above. I am personally divided over whether eternalism is true and the 50% reflects that uncertainty. — Devans99

Your personal idea about eternalism is not a valid foundation for a 50% probability, that is just your personal belief of what is true. You cannot use your own opinions and beliefs as a foundation for mathematical calculations, that is utter nonsense.

But each dimension individually is a line - it has no further structure - so no further variations are possible. — Devans99

What the hell are you talking about?

What is the definition of low-quality posts? mods? I give up soon. This is like debating a dropout.

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic. — Devans99

Is that reason to accept your failed logic? Jeez