|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Time and Beginning to Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: The basic problem here is that the quote doesn't support your claim in the slightest.
quote: No, since you want to argue that the cause of the universe MUST be immaterial, you pretty much need your immaterial realm.
quote: Since the only thing I've said on the subject is to ask you to support the idea that such a realm actually exists, this is just another collection of falsehoods. All you are demonstrating is that you are irrational and have no care for the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: No, there is nothing wrong with my reasoning. Let me remind you that you claim that the existence or non-existence of an immaterial realm is relevant to my argument. ABE: In fact your specific claim was:
PaulK could strengthen his argument if he could prove an immaterial realm does not exist
In "support" of this claim you produced a quote which had nothing to do with the existence of non-existence of an immaterial realm. Clearly if anyone's reasoning is impaired, it is yours.
quote: I "admit" that my argument deals with the case where there is no prior time in the absolute sense. However, you still haven't shown any connection to the existence or non-existence of an immaterial realm, which is the point in question.
quote: I "admit" that postulating that there is a prior moment of time in the case where there is no prior moment of time is a contradiction. But let us note that neither of these have anything to do with the existence of an immaterial realm. Therefore you have still failed to support your assertion. It seems that you are the one who is having problems reasoning. Perhaps you should try calming down and being less emotional ?
quote: Searching for "postulat"was not a good idea since there is no necessary link between the word and the point you are looking for.The issue was addressed in Message 15 Written before you admitted that when you use the word "timeless" you don't mean "timeless". quote: My argument - if you mean the one in the OP - does not address the issue of an immaterial realm at all. It is irrelevant to it. So obviously we can't be discussing my argument when talking about an immaterial realm.
quote: Perhaps if you were to pay attention to what I am saying - and took the time to understand what a circular argument is - things would go better. If you keep repeating the same falsehoods over and over again - without addressing the rebuttals then you will get the same responses. A circular argument must use the conclusion as a premise. The premise you object to is NOT the conclusion Your objection is invalid since the premise simply describes the situation the argument is addressing (and in fact it does not even assert that the situation actually applies anywhere !) You haven't addressed any of these facts.
quote: Perhaps it would be better for you to stop ignoring points that refute your arguments, stop misrepresenting your opponents, and stop making a fool of yourself by talking about logical fallacies you don't understand. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: I think that we need to remember that it is your side that primarily promotes this point of view. William Lane Craig relies on it to argue that the creator must be timeless. And that's the only reason why I'm talking about it. I don't assume that it is true. To the best of my knowledge many cosmologists are happy with alternative ideas (e.g Eternal Inflation).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: I meant Christian apologists and would-be apologists. That's certainly the way William Lane Craig uses it, and he's not the only one.
quote: My understanding is that it is entirely possible that there are other regions of spacetime in addition to our universe, possibly with an infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: Of course we don't. This is just another flaw in the argument that I am opposing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I’m really unable to find any point in your post that is on-topic and worth addressing. So I think leaving it unanswered is for the best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
quote: You mistake an important part of the critic’s view. There is no need to argue whether immaterial concepts exist eternally. These are just descriptions, and it is the things they describe that must exist - although not necessarily eternally.
quote: I am not a determinist, and I prefer physicalist to materialist since matter is not as basic as was once thought. But there is no need to say that matter is eternal. Spacetime might be, or it might not. For the purposes of this argument I have assumed that it is not.
quote: Of these, substance monism comes closest to my views.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Supervenience came up in NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? although Richard Wang didn’t seem to really grasp the concept.
To try to put it simply physical reality is basic. All mental states are based in the physical - no difference without a physical difference is a key phrase you may see. To put it in terms relevant to the earlier thread, information in DNA is supervenient on the chemical structure of the DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: I would say that the mind is a way of looking at the operation of the central nervous system (the brain is very important but it isn’t absolutely everything).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Obviously the mind is a process - thinking, feeling are all active things. That is why it’s another way of looking at the operation Of the central nervous system, rather than the physical system alone,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17815 Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
quote: It isn’t really relativistic. It just acknowledges that there are different opinions and no objective way to choose between them. For instance, in Message 292 you say that Jesus is a more plausible creator god, but nothing you quote supports that claim.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024