The last sentence about children suggests you want to 'TELL THEM what is fact — universeness

So is it not upto the children to decide instead of us telling them what is fact? — Hillary

Good point! A not too many. It is up to the children

I was working in my lab, building the first atheist transhuman. Our imagined mother was killed by an atheist/theist hydra monster sent by the imagined Hypnos and Thanatos, many centuries ago and you know that so I don't know why you would bring this up again — universeness

:lol:

Good lord...

I dont agree with 'unbridgeable.' — universeness

That gap only is closed when we all think alike.

Damned, it's not one sentence but Ill try again.

The whole point being of course is that your "Universe", and the means investigating it, is a fantasy just as well, and if people wanna base their lives on a "Universe" fantasy while trying to get to know all infinite aspects of it, thereby forcing Nature into all kinds of unnatural postures its up to them just as much as it up to the people if they wanna life life based on a God fantasy and gaining knowledge of Nature as it is, with no nightmare dreams of omnipotency or eternal life, and children should be offered all views in growing up, because if not, your society is closed and unfree, and we see what chaos that has caused in the modern day and since science and technology were introduced in old Greece the world has become not a better place but a worse place, that just can't be denied, which makes me conclude that cience and "the Universe" is just one myth amongst many and Mill already told us that in the freemarket of ideas the exclusion of many in the favor of the One is bad.[/quote]

@universeness

I was expecting you! "It's already eleven. Where's brother Uni? Fuck! Didn't mum open the washing machine?"

Visionary on what? The atheist scientist being blind for what? — javi2541997

That's exactly what I mean!

Their faith make them seem blind towards God's mercy — javi2541997

Don't you think ithat rather makes me a visionary? And the atheist scientist the one being blind?

then the problem is solved which is God created infinitely large universe. — SpaceDweller

There you go!

The continuum hypothesis: how the fuck can we break up the continuum?

Interesting video. But it doesn't answer the question. Why can't space be a finite structure on an infinite substrate? Finite universes periodically appearing at a divine origin? A universe appears, then expanding to the infinite angels at the edge, the at infinity back reacting to the origin, two new universes appearing, inflating towards infinity once again, back reacting again, etc. etc. We only need an infinite extra dimension. But what created that infinity of serial universes?

Inftyexp2=Aleph1
Inftyexp3=Aleph2
.
.
.
Inftyexpinfty=Alephinfnty=Baleph



Balephexp2=Caleph1
Balephexp3=Caleph2
.
.
.
Balephexp4=Calephinfty=Daleph

Dalephexp2=Ealeph1
Dalephexp3=Ealeph2
.
.
.Dalephexpinfnty=Ealephinfty=Faleph

Ad infty

Which leaves us with the question, why can't it have a beginning?

It stays infinite, but why can't infinity have a beginning?

Because creation implies beginning. — SpaceDweller

Why can't infinity have a beginning infinitely far away?

The concept of an objective, absolute truth is a strong one, ruling at the base if science and modern thought. "But there has to be such human-detached reality". Sure. But it depends on who you ask what that "fundamentally unknowable" reality looks like. For one it's particles and spacetime, for another that's a mere contingency, and judged by partisans following another party line, it's just spirits existing. Now who's right? All of them! What's the point in arguing? The wrong is just an invention to strengthen one's own ideas.

Why can't infinite space and time be created by God?

So at some time it doesn't exist and exist simultaneously?

. I suspect that the recent and enduring cult of authenticity and hipster artisanal products is another expression of this impulse. As was Transcendentalism in the 19th century. — Tom Storm

Now that's a strange comparison. The world of the 19th century was still in relative good shape Though you would probably call it still underdeveloped. It's this development ideal and the the haughtiness of the western world to call itself the first world which caused the trouble in the so-called third world, whose inhabitants were perfectly able to live a worthy life, but are thrown back in arid despair because of the introduction of the western way. Now they've lost their ways we apologize for our bad behavior in the past and we have to face "reality", which means letting them partake in the western way on equal footing. After the damage done.

So space is an order of coexistence and time an order of successions. Things exist relative to each other. Doesn't that mean there is something between them things?

see nothing productive from this conversation. — Jackson

That's because you made no point.

I think everybody is right, which is kinda hard to swallow for philosophers being descendants of Plato et al.

which was my point — Jackson

So your point is they have a different kind of relativism. Then what's the point?

Oh man, how I hate the morning TV in which we are told by army functionaries in uniform about the intricacies of the war and crying woman are shown in quantities they have never been shown before. How it is told that people in the whole western world are solidary with the Ukranians, that we should be so happy to live in freedom, Putin is called the new Hitler, and the army asks for more money, and we are told about the vile propaganda used while the propaganda of freedom is just as hard downplayed on us. And how cute and how nicely naive is the woman presenting it. Yes, I know, the TV has an on/off button.

What you mean by "coming into existence"?

You could try sharing that evidence if you like — Philosophim

Every creature and the sky beneath which they life is proof of God.

like I wrote, different forms of relativism. It's only a word both have in common.

Sez you — T Clark

Oh, come on! Everybody who doesn't see the nightmare-like character of western civilization has or been brainwashed to sufficient extent, or paid well enough to shut up.

The "above comments" you are referring to are generally respectful and responsive — T Clark

Where do I deny that? They are responsive, as are all comments. They are respectful. And fierce resisting. Which is understandable, as most respondents probably owe the system for their well-being, which isn't everybody's measure of well-being.

What then did you mean with the comparison between L and E?
— Hillary

I said it already. — Jackson

Okay, but their relativisms are different.

Isn't noumenon contained in food? You are what you eat.

From "Diary of an Addict":

"How preferable it is not to exist or never to have existed. Only intense pain, deep misery, and prolonged suffering seem to show up and the few moments of drug-induced instant-fix warmth and well-being wear off rapidly and only lead to a deepening of the hopeless despair, making one crave for new relief soon after.
Of course you have to exist first to come to this horrible conclusion, which makes it even worse and the realization that one is too big a coward to end the horror oneself can only make one long for the day the last breath is taken."

Possibly, of course. Just not as Kant’s noumenon — Mww

Of course. But as the noumenon can become part of us, simply by litterally eating it, it can turn to phenomenon. Kant tells us that das Ding an Sich can't be known. Which would imply we can't know ourselves, which for some might be the case though.

The Bible is just a wicked scheme set up by even more wicked atheists. It's a very refined attempt to lure people into the atheist trap.

Yeah, guess so. Whether you jump the shark or nuke the fridge, we're all stuck in the same sticky shit.

. I simply don't believe in a God because there is no evidence. — Philosophim

Then why do I see the evidence all around me and you don't?

Cause and effect don't apply to an event, so neither does self causation. Self causation would be equivalent to self effecting. Which would mean the event is eternally stuck. So maybe you're right. Only an eternally stuck event could cause as well as effect itself. Self causation implies self effecting.

The only way left for me is to reject this civilization in its totality and embrace the life of a shepherd in a countryside, away from all the trouble and in peace with myself. However, many of you don't think this is the way to go, but do you see the light at the end of the tunnel ? — Eskander

I think the light on the end of the tunnel is mostly another train, if the tunnel is a western one.

Living a sober life, without too much attention fo
product and commerce, and not participating in a scheme set up by the possessing class, using scientific knowledge not just for knowledge's sake, but to reform the natural into mathematically predictable schematics, or to rule from the miserable hearts of control, and beat the masses into submission, giving them just enough to eat, TV games to distract, or hope of winning lottery money, while constructions on land, sea, and even space are constantly monitoring the so highly valued material possessions, is a respectable goal!

Ok — Jackson

What then did you mean with the comparison between L and E?

If the glove does not fit you have to acquit. Same realm. — Jackson

So for a moving observer the glove might have different relations?

Relational. No such things as things occurring in space for Leibniz. — Jackson

Then Einstein thought differently. E saw space as really existing with objects in it. And space between them.

It's my question. If the relation between It's parts, as L defines space, is different for two observers then would they be different gloves for each?

Conceptually. Like I said, Leibniz did not present mathematical demonstrations. — Jackson

Space is subjective?