[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[The Grand Nudger]

Why does it seem like more than that? I'm pretty sure that "getting with scientists" will leave you with the impression that time is pretty close to what you just mentioned. Not precisely, because I don't think the contention is that it is -just- a measure of events.....but our experience of it - the "seems" bit- that's exactly what it is.

The overall point in any of this is to question why - if you couldn't argue against the universe being capable of doing whatever you would claim for god- there's any reason to inject "god" in the first place?

[Mystic]

I don't believe in a Creator based on the cosmological argument. I said cosmological argument doesn't prove the universe is not the first cause.

Because something has to facilitate motion, time seems to be a dimension, and not simply a measurement of events.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Motion"? As in, one moment it's here, the next it's there? Seems to require that there be "moments" to judge between, don't it? After all, without "moments" how would we determine whether something is "in motion"? It's all very fun. Nothing preventing the "measure of events" from being a "dimension" after all. Not quite the same thing, but we do use the word dimension - to refer to measurements, after all - and that does factor into what our idea of a dimension is. Language.

[Mystic]

"Motion"? As in, one moment it's here, the next it's there? Seems to require that there be "moments" to judge between, don't it? After all, without "moments" how would we determine whether something is "in motion"?

I don't know how this falsifies what I said. Clarification?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh it doesn't bud. As usual, we're both, ultimately, in the same boat with regards to time and cause and things like this. Neither of us have a very satisfying explanation - which is why I'm of the opinion I mentioned posts ago.

[Mystic]

I tend to believe what seems true to me, even if I am uncertain. I can't be certain time is a dimension, but it seems to be true.

When we talk about certainty, we can't even prove the past exists. However, I am relatively certain that the past exists, and that we don't have the deceiver demon creator that would be messing with us (creating a universal false memory).

Or that you and others do exist (again not a deceiver demon creator that would be messing with us).

[The Grand Nudger]

As before, still in the same boat - what I'm questioning (often in our conversations) is how a god or creator can elaborate upon any of these things. Why it seems -to you- to be something worth entertaining, especially when we have a situation where we can plug in "the universe" or "god" and both work as well - or not as well- for the same reasons - with the universe being something neither of us feels the need to argue into existence and god being entirely less "meaty" in comparison.

---

I found another, perhaps simpler, way to put this. One side is attempting to explain the unknown by reference to the known - the other is attempting to explain the unknown by reference to the unknown.

[Angrboda]

But time seems more then that, it seems part of reality.

What is the difference between 'reality' and the universe? It seems you are asserting a difference here, and it's not clear what that difference is.

---

For what it's worth, what is not a part of the universe would not necessarily be bound by the nature of the universe, so no special pleading is required as the two are not categorically comparable. The difficulty comes in that you've inserted an epistemic barrier which essentially prevents you from knowing anything at all about that not universe thing. As remarked earlier, I think the special pleading asserted is simply masking the problems with the first premise.

Furthermore, natural law is not an inherent property of the universe. All we know is that our mathematical models are consistent with observation. Yes, Humean skepticism is not necessarily a given, but there is nothing to prevent this consistency from being merely a convenient happenstance produced completely at random. (I have a variation on Platonic realism, a conjecture if you will; my conjecture is that, any randomly created universe is more likely than not to exhibit some sort of order that could be analogized to a natural law. Needless to say, it's something of groundless speculation, but it seems, at minimum, to comport with things like Ramsey's theory [any sufficiently large sequence will contain patterns].)

[Mystic]

As before, still in the same boat - what I'm questioning (often in our conversations) is how a god or creator can elaborate upon any of these things. Why it seems -to you- to be something worth entertaining, especially when we have a situation where we can plug in "the universe" or "god" and both work as well - or not as well- for the same reasons - with the universe being something neither of us feels the need to argue into existence and god being entirely less "meaty" in comparison.

As far as cosmological argument, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. But there can be reasons outside the cosmological argument.

I found another, perhaps simpler, way to put this. One side is attempting to explain the unknown by reference to the known - the other is attempting to explain the unknown by reference to the unknown.

Ontologically, there is no proof material world exists, as far as I am aware of. For all we know, it can be matrix like.

Also, if we have a soul, then it's not unlikely we been given perception or knowledge of having that soul.

---

But time seems more then that, it seems part of reality.

What is the difference between 'reality' and the universe? It seems you are asserting a difference here, and it's not clear what that difference is.

Well I'm saying it's part of the material world in this instance, a dimension of the universe. What I meant by it not being simply a measurement of events, is that time is needed for events, and is a property of the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

As far as cosmological argument, there is no reason to prefer one over the other. But there can be reasons outside the cosmological argument.

If I'm understanding you correctly here, I'd have to disagree very strongly. There is one huge, in your face, -always on- reason to prefer one over the other. I mentioned it in my last post

Ontologically, there is no proof material world exists, as far as I am aware of. For all we know, it can be matrix like.

Which would require a subtle shift in how we use the terms - but ultimately "the matrix" would just be "the universe".

Also, if we have a soul, then it's not unlikely we been given perception or knowledge of having that soul.

I think you went off the rails here. Firstly in the "if we have a soul"..but lay that aside. What about the existence of a soul would make it any more likely that we'd be given knowledge or perception of it? We don't even have to ask "if we have dna" but we weren't given any knowledge or perception of that.....you've left something unspoken.