Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ratiocinator]

My 'testing and evidence' is not limited to physical science.

So how do you do it, then? How do you avoid just latching on to what you'd like to be true?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Without a justification, you cannot know that you have understood, rather than just having an unsupported opinion.


You're trying to 'correct' something you appear to have no understanding of.

Only those who are unsure need justification and support from others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We all have opinions .. and we all have varying reasons for them.

So your opinions are facts about the universe/world! Is that it?

 

[ratiocinator]

Only those who are unsure need justification and support from others.

Only those who are unbelievably arrogant think they don't need justification - and I'm not talking about "from others", I mean some actual evidence or sound reasoning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So how do you do it, then? How do you avoid just latching on to what you'd like to be true?

I investigate .. I think .. I read .. I try to avoid prejudice .. I use my experience .. converse with others.

I don't consider myself a 'dualist' in the sense that mind and body are distinct, but recognize
non-physical concept as valid.

 

[Pogo]

Understanding does not need justifying, correcting misunderstanding is not arguing,

But you are not correcting misunderstanding, you are arguing without justification that your understanding is correct.

 

[ratiocinator]

I investigate .. I think .. I read .. I try to avoid prejudice .. I use my experience .. converse with others.

As I said, there is no reason whatsoever to think human experience is at all relevant to questions like this. The others are all fine, but you will never have a rational basis for your beliefs if you don't have evidence or sound logic. Sorry.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So your opinions are facts about the universe/world! Is that it?

No .. that is not it .. they are my opinions.

Example
-------------

'scientists' have decided that butter is bad for you. Some people consider it 'a fact'. I think about it, and see that my ancestors had a certain amount of butter in their diet, and it didn't seem to do them any harm.
I conclude that you can have too much of a good thing.

Tomorrow, I might hold a different opinion .. but probably not.

 

[ratiocinator]

'scientists' have decided that butter is bad for you. I think about it, and see that my ancestors
had a certain amount of butter in their diet, and it didn't seem to do them any harm.
I conclude that you can have too much of a good thing.

That's actually quite funny for at least two reasons. Sad, but funny.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you will never have a rational basis for your beliefs if you don't have evidence or sound logic..

I agree .. but your idea of logic seems to be confined to one area of academia.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No .. that is not it .. they are my opinions.

...

So we agree. It is not about truth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Only those who are unbelievably arrogant think they don't need justification - and I'm not talking about "from others", I mean some actual evidence or sound reasoning.

You are welcome to have your opinions, God bless you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So we agree. It is not about truth.

No .. we don't agree.
My opinions are about what I consider to be truth.

We all have opinions .. and sometimes we might not even be consciously aware of
why we hold them. Psychology is deep.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But you are not correcting misunderstanding, you are arguing without justification that your understanding is correct.

You are welcome to your opinion, God bless you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No .. we don't agree.
My opinions are about what I consider to be truth.

We all have opinions .. and sometimes we might not even be consciously aware of
why we hold them. Psychology is deep.

So it is about the truth. Then with truth explain how it is that the truth about the universe is how it makes sense to you and not somebody else.

 

[ratiocinator]

I agree .. but your idea of logic seems to be confined to one area of academia.

I'm using the appropriate discipline for the subject at hand. You have not, to date, supplied any logic at all to back up your assertions on the subject.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm using the appropriate discipline for the subject at hand..

I disagree.
It's illogical to assume that science can answer the question.

Science only deals with observations WITHIN the universe .. the rest is speculation,
as you have already agreed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..explain how it is that the truth about the universe is how it makes sense to you and not somebody else.

The point behind conversing with others, is to listen to what they have to say,
and also explain your point of view.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's illogical to assume that science can answer the question.

How can anything else shed any light on the subject? We have zero evidence that time is anything but a property of the universe.

Science only deals with observations WITHIN the universe .. the rest is speculation,
as you have already agreed.

And, as I explained before, there are various levels of speculation depending on how far we stray from what is actually known from the evidence.

I have yet to see any hint of sound logic or evidence from you for your view that there is some sort of "philosophical time" that is somehow separate from the physical space-time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The point behind conversing with others, is to listen to what they have to say,
and also explain your point of view.

But here is the problem. If something is not dependent on how you think, then can you know something about it based on that you think about it?