Are you in the habits of contradicting yourself, or in the habits of moving the goalposts,
@ben d?
You wrote in 2 posts below, that it was never about religion but it all about “logic” (highlighted in
red):
There is no problem, you create one by insisting on the need to have a beginning to existence.. There was no beginning, eternity is all there ever is, was, or ever will be. This is not about religion, this is logic. It is only the mortal mind's limited perception being projected onto the whole of existence that is not logical.
It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with logic. Sure, there may be evidence that suggests such and such may be an explanation, but I want to see something more than evidence that suggests, I want evidence that meets the standard of proof before I would accept it as being true. And I am very patient.
But in the above post you
want evidence to meet your agenda or your personal preference (highlighted in
violet).
Evidence is part of the observed reality, in which some models are used to explain the reality, and not simply because what you want.
You only care about your fantasy, not the reality.
Any model can be potentially right or factual or it could be potentially wrong or false...hence the needs for evidence, observation and testing.
And there are standards in science, that proposed models must all pass requirements of the standards.
Since the physical cosmology - the study of the origin and evolution and the nature of the observable universe - comprise of multi-disciplines in physics (eg astronomy, astrophysics, Relativity, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics, etc), then they would all fall under both PHYSICAL SCIENCES and NATURAL SCIENCES.
Meaning, The standards for natural sciences, are -
- Methodological Naturalism,
- Falsifiability,
- Scientific Method,
- Peer Review.
Essential to all of the above, the models (eg hypotheses) must be testable and tested, and the only way to test these models, are through observations and evidence.
It is the reality of the evidence that will weed out weak or false hypotheses, or verify hypotheses being possible candidates of scientific theory. But that’s only possible if a hypothesis passed all 3 requirements: being falsifiable/testable, tested (Scientific Method) and reviewed by independent scientists (Peer Review).
The evidence are what needed to objectively determine the values of the models, and not wants of yours.
Then in the next 2 posts, you speak of “intuition”:
I trust my actual intuition over any hypothetical possibility of something can come from nothing.
My intuition says that you don't understand time, nor does anyone who treats time as an entity.
You do you realize “logic” is about “conscious reasoning”, while intuition “is not conscious reasoning”, don’t you?
If you are being “logical” than
you are not using “intuition”. And if you are being “intuitive”,
you are not using “logic”.
LOGIC and INTUITION are opposite to each other. You are being contradicting.
And as far as from the 4 quotes above, you have not being logical.
And NOW you seem to hold a more low profile and a more humble attitude to "your stuff".
