Timeless existence must support change but the only type of change we know of is within time. This is the issue I am roadblocked on. — Devans99
Debates only decide who's boss, not who's correct. Besides, the opposing opinions in this thread are using different criteria : scientific empirical vs rational theoretical. God is not an empirical fact, but a theoretical opinion. Note that the OP says "almost certainly". So, we could debate until the gods come home, and never reach a final truth.I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP. — Banno
I think the argument in the OP needs to be defined more precisely or simply. — Outlander
No. That's why philosophical speculations on ultimate truths and causes are always couched in metaphors. Plato's Forms are not real things, but ideas that we can grasp by analogy. Professional philosophers would be out of a job, if your assertion was true. Even hard-nosed scientists speculate on ideas without hard evidence (e.g. Dark Matter), and their theories are presented in metaphorical language : Dark Matter is like . . .This is because our language has nothing to grasp, nothing to work with. The best we can do is silence. — Banno
No, we know no such thing. The fact that past-eternal and cyclical cosmological models remain viable is of course due precisely to the fact that we know no such thing. And the past could possibly be infinite, apparently, because there is nothing logically contradictory about an infinite past or infinite causal sequence- at least, not so far as you or Craig or anyone else has hitherto been able to rigorously demonstrate. Nor is there any compelling body of empirical scientific evidence establishing a finite past (and again, thus the viability of past-eternal models).We do know that time has a start - how could the past possibly be longer than any finite number of days?
Debates only decide who's boss, not who's correct. — Gnomon
Plato's Forms are not real things, but ideas that we can grasp by analogy. — Gnomon
There is a debating feature on this forum. It does not get sufficient use.
I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP. — Banno
Yes. What happens here is philosophical dialogue. Many of us on this forum have no formal philosophical training, but are autodidacts. It's way of learning about other people's ideas on topics of interest. Did you think the OP was making a formal argument, or inviting a contentious debate? Are you learning anything new? :smile:As opposed to, say, what happens here? — Banno
That's why I have put my personal scientific & philosophical worldview into the form of a non-academic thesis : Enformationism. I am not content to hold unscientific beliefs or emotional feelings on important matters.The discussions in these general forums rarely achieve any depth. — Banno
all philosophical domains will be argued. — 3017amen
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.