Maybe you could start providing claims (the more the better) that others can then go out and check? — jorndoe

How can others check the experience? I can only tell it. And the tale told was pretty convincing though the wish might be the father of the dream. Anyhow, it was a wonderful dream.

How can others check the experience? I can only tell it. And the tale told was pretty convincing though the wish might be the father of the dream. Anyhow, it was a wonderful dream. — Hillary

Solipsism. Just because you have an experience does not mean it is true for other people.

Solipsism. Just because you have an experience does not mean it is true for other people. — Jackson

Dunno if it solipsism. I don't deny your existence. Maybe the experience of your world, without gods, is solipsism. You deny my reality.

You deny my reality. — Hillary

Remember, the topic of the thread is why proofs for God are not legitimate.
I said nothing about your reality.

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

You went too far with your first sentence.

I'm demonstrating that proofs of God's existence depend on questionable metaphysical assumption, and therefore don't comprise an objective proof. Your objection depends on still more questionable assumptions about the metaphysics of time.

Nevertheless, my position is simply that there is a fundamental basis of material reality. This applies irrespective of the number of types or dimensions of time. As the basis, it can't NOT exist- not at any point in any dimension or type of time.

Still, in terms of established science, time is of one type, one dimension, and uni-directional. The "proof" of God that is being considered here is based on this standard paradigm. It has been alleged that a finite past (in this paradigm) entails that material reality must have been caused. I have shown that to be a nonsequitur. It is not entailed by the paradigm, and it depends on making convenient assumptions.

I'm demonstrating that proofs of God's existence depend on questionable metaphysical assumption — Relativist

It's no metaphysical assumption. There are no metaphysical assumptions in my cosmology. It's a coherent, self consistent cosmology uniting different disciplines in physics into a solid, rational description of the cosmos. It describes a timeless underlying higher dimensional thermodynamically timeless quantum vacuum structure on which two mirrored universes can inflate into existence periodically. No gaps of knowledge are left. It's a closed structure. Who ordered it? What's the reason the underground structure exists? Only gods offer a rationally reasonable answer.

Only gods offer a rationally reasonable answer. — Hillary

Yes. Which is the topic of the thread. There are no proofs for God because people choose to believe.

Yes. Which is the topic of the thread. There are no proofs for God because people choose to believe. — Jackson

Likewise, there is no proof for the reality of a godless world you choose to believe in. So the best we can do is to accept that there are two objective realities.

there is no proof for the reality of a godless world you choose to believe in. — Hillary

I never said that.

"Can there be a proof of God?"

This is an interesting question, but even if we can find a proof that God exists, can we also find a proof of how God was created? What if another God created God? Can we find proofs for all the Gods? What if there is an infinite number of Gods?

I think if we find a proof, we wouldn't call it God anymore. And another thing we call God would appear, because the fact that it cannot be proven is part of the God concept...

Why you want proof in the first place? Because only then you are sure?

Why you want proof in the first place? — Hillary

I never said I want a proof.

can we also find a proof of how God was created? — Skalidris

Eternal intelligences don't need to be created. They are the reason themselves. Non-intelligent material does need a rational reason to exist. Non-intelligent material can't bring itself into existence. It needs intelligence. Intelligent design.

I never said I want a proof. — Jackson

What then is your critique on theism? You don't have it!

What then is your critique on theism? You don't have it! — Hillary

The topic of the thread is the why proofs of God fail. I gave reasons. I did not talk about theism other than in terms of proofs.

So the best we can do is to accept that there are two objective realities. — Hillary

Don't think that can make sense.
What about, say, Nettles' and Applewhite's fantasies...?
There are such things as fiction, fantasies, imaginations, hallucinations, etc — things that aren't universal/extra-self, but experienced by someone nonetheless, right?
If people believe contradictory things, then it stands to reason that they can't both be right.
How would such contradictory things play out anyway?

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

It's a coherent, self consistent cosmology uniting different disciplines in physics into a solid, rational description of the cosmos. — 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.

Be it the reality of the physical cosmos, the gods, astrology, the dreamtime, the mind, the witches, or whatever reality, there is no one and only absolute reality. For different people there are different objective realities. The absolute reality, the one reality is an ancient idea. Introduced by Plato, Xenophanes, etc.

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

Only 5. is metaphysical. The first four are physical.

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

:fire: :100:

The why question doesn't apply to the existence of gods, as eternal intelligences don't require another reason.
— Hillary

Why not? — 180 Proof

@Hillary you ought to answer this question like your credibility depends on it because it does.

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.

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

This is a nonsensical claim in the wider picture I offer.

By the way, cosmology typically considers another option: no definite earliest time, and not an infinite past duration — jorndoe

Sounds reasonable and for the current universe it holds. There was fluctuating time before the emergent thermodynamic time. The primordial clock goes forward and backwards (virtual particles). The clock emerging from it (real particle pairs emerging from a virtual, the quantum bubble is broken)..

But... the virtual state needs a trigger. A previous universe. The 5D quantum vacuum ensures this.

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

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

Aristotle defines metaphysics as first philosophy. The discussion of the basic principles one uses in philosophy.

:up:

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

OK then, how can these "facts" be established as true?

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.

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

The argument presented is:

I like vanilla ice cream. Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream. Therefore, vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.

:smirk:

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

That's physics and theology in one!