Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A General Complaint About God Debates

Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage?
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Why do you think the creation of the universe entails the creation of time? The universe implies physical objects that make it up, eternalism, as you have said, defines time or includes it as a special kind of dimension (special pleading). Well by definition, you're saying it isn't a physical manifestation of anything. So why do you believe one involves the other?
Is this an unfair advantage?

if you're implying God has no concept or philosophy of time, he isn't omniscient.
People always misrepresent what creationists argue when they say time was created with the universe. They merely mean, time within the universe. God has a concept of time based on biblical text, so any philosophy of time that implies it wasn't created until the universe was is a misleading ambiguous idea of time. If you can demonstrate a non physical thing, time, didn't exist within God before creation, I'd like to see the argument. Eternalism, as I understand it, is implying time is eternal, hence the universe is eternal. Unless "wasn't created" isn't also implying had no beginning.
If time is eternal, if time is merely a thought, it's an eternal thing that is a part of an eternal God. If you think time has any connection with anything physical, I'd like to see the argument and evidence to prove the connection. And aren't you just claiming that something that exists as an ,or in a , alternate dimension can have a connection with physical things? That would mean you think God (conceptualized as something that exists in an alternate special dimension) could also, but doesn't currently ,have a connection with the physical universe. After all, the idea of god(s) have always maintained ,they or it ,exists in a special kind of dimension. (spiritual)
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension?
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:54:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?
it wasn't an argument, it was a question why you mentioned matter and space AND time. They aren't synonymous, Like I said you can see matter, you can't see time, and space is even more vague.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:46:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 4:54:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?
it wasn't an argument, it was a question why you mentioned matter and space AND time. They aren't synonymous, Like I said you can see matter, you can't see time, and space is even more vague. : :

I agree that space, time and matter aren't synonymous but none of these things are real things. They are only illusions that we experience from our individual perspectives.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:53:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?

You must be new here. Try to avoid him as much as possible.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:54:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 7:53:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?

You must be new here. Try to avoid him as much as possible. : :

I don't avoid anyone. It makes life more interesting that way.
n7
Posts: 1,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:00:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage?

With debates like "God is likely to exist" or something along that lines, I've always thought that if an all good, all powerful God is proven, then it's implied that it's more likely that he's all knowing as well. It would seem to be silly to concede prima facie that it's likely an all good and powerful God exists, but it's unlikely that he has all knowledge.

At least that's my assumption in debates to make the BOP fair.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:05:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 7:53:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?

You must be new here. Try to avoid him as much as possible.

time is that special little friend in its magical dimension that you have actually no proof of But its there. Sounds like god worship to me.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:21:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 7:46:10 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:54:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?
it wasn't an argument, it was a question why you mentioned matter and space AND time. They aren't synonymous, Like I said you can see matter, you can't see time, and space is even more vague. : :

I agree that space, time and matter aren't synonymous but none of these things are real things. They are only illusions that we experience from our individual perspectives.

this is patently false "matter" is at the quantum level spinning vortices of energy. If you could build a microscope strong enough so that humans could see it, it would basically look like super fast spinning tornadoes of energy. Matter can be seen and verified. Time cannot. Think of matter basically in regards to its volumetric ratio and you end up with the same ratio as 1 second is to 30 million years, 1 second is the substance the other is the volume of space needed.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:32:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2015 12:21:27 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:46:10 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:54:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?
it wasn't an argument, it was a question why you mentioned matter and space AND time. They aren't synonymous, Like I said you can see matter, you can't see time, and space is even more vague. : :

I agree that space, time and matter aren't synonymous but none of these things are real things. They are only illusions that we experience from our individual perspectives.

this is patently false "matter" is at the quantum level spinning vortices of energy. If you could build a microscope strong enough so that humans could see it, it would basically look like super fast spinning tornadoes of energy. Matter can be seen and verified. Time cannot. Think of matter basically in regards to its volumetric ratio and you end up with the same ratio as 1 second is to 30 million years, 1 second is the substance the other is the volume of space needed. : :

Matter is an illusion. Light is produced from invisible waves which have to be processed by each individual created being in order to be observed. Light is not something that is real and neither is gravity. Everything we perceive with our senses comes from nothing but information in the form of waves.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:36:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2015 12:21:27 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:46:10 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:54:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I worship a flying bowl of tortilla soup. It exists as or in the same special dimension that time does....prove me wrong.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 3:54:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2015 12:00:13 AM, n7 wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage?

With debates like "God is likely to exist" or something along that lines, I've always thought that if an all good, all powerful God is proven, then it's implied that it's more likely that he's all knowing as well. It would seem to be silly to concede prima facie that it's likely an all good and powerful God exists, but it's unlikely that he has all knowledge.
Fair enough, but which argument does attempt to achieve this? No argument really aims to establish omnipotence. I guess "powerfull enough to create the universe" is sufficient.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 6:28:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2015 12:32:16 AM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/15/2015 12:21:27 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:46:10 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:54:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:32:04 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:25:26 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:18:19 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:12:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:30:09 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage? : :

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some evidence that God exists? That would make it much easier for theists and atheists to agree with each other.

Show me the physical evidence that time exists and please no stock argument like aging, no popular belief like everyone has a clock. : :

If you're looking for evidence that time, space and matter exists, then you're asking the wrong person. Go ask scientists and religious people who still believe these things are real.
no one said anything about space or matter. Matter isn't a special kind of dimension, it's essentially a way of describing energy. Who ever said space is a special kind of dimension? : :

Why are you trying to argue with me?
it wasn't an argument, it was a question why you mentioned matter and space AND time. They aren't synonymous, Like I said you can see matter, you can't see time, and space is even more vague. : :

I agree that space, time and matter aren't synonymous but none of these things are real things. They are only illusions that we experience from our individual perspectives.

this is patently false "matter" is at the quantum level spinning vortices of energy. If you could build a microscope strong enough so that humans could see it, it would basically look like super fast spinning tornadoes of energy. Matter can be seen and verified. Time cannot. Think of matter basically in regards to its volumetric ratio and you end up with the same ratio as 1 second is to 30 million years, 1 second is the substance the other is the volume of space needed. : :

Matter is an illusion. Light is produced from invisible waves which have to be processed by each individual created being in order to be observed. Light is not something that is real and neither is gravity. Everything we perceive with our senses comes from nothing but information in the form of waves.

I'm just saying you can see matter as spinning vortices, if could construct a microscope that's strong enough which is impossible. But as in matter is an illusion, technically, there is such minimal amount of what could even be considered substance that illusion isn't quite that far off. Like I said in a post. The volumetric ratio of an atom is like 1 second is to 30 million years, almost non substance compared to volume of space needed.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 8:33:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage?

There is a lesson here the more specific the claim the harder and harder it is to justify.

So if you not only going to claim that a God exists (some person that exists outside of the universe) but claim this God among other things is all power, all knowing and hates gays............well good luck with that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 2:08:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2015 8:33:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage?

There is a lesson here the more specific the claim the harder and harder it is to justify.
Perhaps the question should have been whether it is possible to truly share the BoP in a debate.

So if you not only going to claim that a God exists (some person that exists outside of the universe) but claim this God among other things is all power, all knowing and hates gays............well good luck with that.
JMcKinley
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 5:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.
At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.
The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.
This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage?

Well not really unfair. Its just the nature of the claim. A God claim is a pretty spectacular claim that is typically made up of many sub-claims. Even theists would agree with that I think. In order to prove that their god-claim is correct they need to prove each of those sub-claims like you explained in your post. These are very difficult things to do, and are made more difficult by the severe lack of physical evidence corroborating their claims. So yes it is more difficult to debate the pro-side of a religion debate. We agree on this it seems.

But when it comes to a debate and what constitutes a fair debate, the difficulty of proving either side is irrelevant. A debate is fair when both parties get sufficient and equal time to prepare and present their evidence, and prepare and present their rebuttal and counter-rebuttal of their opponent's arguments. Remember that this is a search for truth, and not a sporting match. In a sport there should be no bias, but in a debate there should be a bias towards truth and sound arguments. If that bias makes it more difficult to argue for something then that's just tough. Unlike a sports match there actually is a right or wrong outcome for a debate depending on what the truth is.

To provide a handicap to the theist debator so that the debate is "more fair" goes against the fundamental purpose of a debate which is to uncover truth. Things that are hard to prove aren't necessarily false. So we should always work hard to uncover truth and keep our minds open. But the last thing we want to do is to lower our standards of what constitutes truth and proof. Because that would be entirely unfair.
Yassine
Posts: 2,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2015 12:54:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Usually God debates start out with some definition, say, "the perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe". Arguments for such a God include the KCA, the moral ontological argument and the TA. However no argument alone proves all attributes of God. This has to be done, since by committing to a specific definition, the attributes of this definition are the necessary and together sufficient conditions for the existence of God.

- Agreed.

At best a conjunction of these arguments is sufficient, but that is not guaranteed as even if one argument proves the existence of a creator and another proves the existence of a moral authority, I have yet to see an argument for why these beings should be identical.

- Also agreed. I too noticed this in many debates. Why go to the trouble of refuting all the attributes if refuting is sufficient.

The Con side on the other hand might offer only one argument, say, an appeal to eternalism against a created universe to, if successful, prove that no creator exists.

- I don't see how such an argument would be successful. But, if it can successfully refute the specific definition of a necessary attribute (Creator), then it naturally follows that the concept of God associated to that definition is refuted.

This means that even if the theist can successfully defend a TA, a moral argument and perhaps another argument, as long as Con can successfully run a single argument against one attribute, Con succeeds in demonstrating that no God (defined as above) exists, winning the debate.

Is this an unfair advantage?

- Of course not. It's the only logical conclusion, unless the refuted attribute is not considered necessary.
Current Debates:

Freedom Of Religion: Secular Law/Society Vs. Islamic Law/Society :
* http://www.debate.org...

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Is Infallible :
* http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 11:44:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time is inherently tied to the physical universe because time is only defined by changing events. The second is defined as the number of oscillations of a cesium atom. It might seem that that's arbitrary and that time would continue even if there were no motion to measure it, but it's fundamental. In science, physical properties are defined by way in which they are measured; the principle is operationalism.

Our universe is about 14.3 billion years old, and as the entropy increases with expansion, the clock on the universe is running. Somebody claims that in roughly 20 trillion years or so, molecular motion will stop, and time will end.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 2:11:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2015 11:44:11 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Time is inherently tied to the physical universe because time is only defined by changing events. The second is defined as the number of oscillations of a cesium atom. It might seem that that's arbitrary and that time would continue even if there were no motion to measure it, but it's fundamental. In science, physical properties are defined by way in which they are measured; the principle is operationalism.

correct me if I'm wrong. Time is changing events and since there are changing events in the universe then there is time, Is that about it? At the quantum level does matter ever change? Or does it remain spinning vortices of energy no matter what appearance it takes on when it becomes visible to us? Some scientists even say it's merely up to the observer. So technically what you posted would be how you observe it, but that doesn't mean it is how someone else observes it. Or did you post how someone else observes it and you simply concur? Or maybe its an illusion, well close to an illusion. As this seems to imply.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...

Our universe is about 14.3 billion years old, and as the entropy increases with expansion, the clock on the universe is running. Somebody claims that in roughly 20 trillion years or so, molecular motion will stop, and time will end.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 4:48:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2015 2:11:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
correct me if I'm wrong. Time is changing events and since there are changing events in the universe then there is time, Is that about it? At the quantum level does matter ever change? Or does it remain spinning vortices of energy no matter what appearance it takes on when it becomes visible to us? Some scientists even say it's merely up to the observer. So technically what you posted would be how you observe it, but that doesn't mean it is how someone else observes it. Or did you post how someone else observes it and you simply concur? Or maybe its an illusion, well close to an illusion. As this seems to imply.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...

No, time is not changing events. Time is defined by changing events, but does not cause them. The moving hands on a train station clock mark time, but they do not cause the train to arrive. If nothing whatsoever moves, the concept of time is meaningless.

The cited article says nothing about the nature of time. It has multiple logical fallacies related to matter. If it is true that in some sense the behavior of atoms is not "real," meaning not analogous to macroscopic behavior of matter, it does not follow that the objects made of atoms are not real. That's a fallacy of composition. Atoms are well-behaved statistically.

The article supposes that because aspects of quantum physics are not well-understood, that the world or the universe is equally a mystery. That's not true. Things are understood at different levels. The article says, "Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature." No, that's nonsense, Quantum physics discovered that atoms are described statistically rather deterministically.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:09:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2015 4:48:16 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/16/2015 2:11:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
correct me if I'm wrong. Time is changing events and since there are changing events in the universe then there is time, Is that about it? At the quantum level does matter ever change? Or does it remain spinning vortices of energy no matter what appearance it takes on when it becomes visible to us? Some scientists even say it's merely up to the observer. So technically what you posted would be how you observe it, but that doesn't mean it is how someone else observes it. Or did you post how someone else observes it and you simply concur? Or maybe its an illusion, well close to an illusion. As this seems to imply.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...

No, time is not changing events. Time is defined by changing events, but does not cause them. The moving hands on a train station clock mark time, but they do not cause the train to arrive. If nothing whatsoever moves, the concept of time is meaningless.
Actually the moving hands on a clock "mark" a man made device clicking away by what some human decided to build to represent something that has never been verified as existing with any evidence whatsoever. The only reasonable idea of what a clock does is create a uniform "language" for humans to use to plan interaction with one another without confusion. At least to me.

The cited article says nothing about the nature of time. It has multiple logical fallacies related to matter. If it is true that in some sense the behavior of atoms is not "real," meaning not analogous to macroscopic behavior of matter, it does not follow that the objects made of atoms are not real. That's a fallacy of composition. Atoms are well-behaved statistically.
That wasn't really my point. My point was the appearance of what is real is semantics. Essentially, we say solid, but nothing actually is at its actual beginning point "free from voids".
The article supposes that because aspects of quantum physics are not well-understood, that the world or the universe is equally a mystery. That's not true. Things are understood at different levels. The article says, "Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature." No, that's nonsense, Quantum physics discovered that atoms are described statistically rather deterministically.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 9:28:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2015 4:48:16 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 9/16/2015 2:11:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
correct me if I'm wrong. Time is changing events and since there are changing events in the universe then there is time, Is that about it? At the quantum level does matter ever change? Or does it remain spinning vortices of energy no matter what appearance it takes on when it becomes visible to us? Some scientists even say it's merely up to the observer. So technically what you posted would be how you observe it, but that doesn't mean it is how someone else observes it. Or did you post how someone else observes it and you simply concur? Or maybe its an illusion, well close to an illusion. As this seems to imply.
http://www.collective-evolution.com...

No, time is not changing events. Time is defined by changing events, but does not cause them. The moving hands on a train station clock mark time, but they do not cause the train to arrive. If nothing whatsoever moves, the concept of time is meaningless.
No, if nothing what so ever moves then the concept of motion is meaningless. Gravity makes things move, not time.
The cited article says nothing about the nature of time. It has multiple logical fallacies related to matter. If it is true that in some sense the behavior of atoms is not "real," meaning not analogous to macroscopic behavior of matter, it does not follow that the objects made of atoms are not real. That's a fallacy of composition. Atoms are well-behaved statistically.

The article supposes that because aspects of quantum physics are not well-understood, that the world or the universe is equally a mystery. That's not true. Things are understood at different levels. The article says, "Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature." No, that's nonsense, Quantum physics discovered that atoms are described statistically rather deterministically.
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2015 11:44:11 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Time is inherently tied to the physical universe because time is only defined by changing events. The second is defined as the number of oscillations of a cesium atom. It might seem that that's arbitrary and that time would continue even if there were no motion to measure it, but it's fundamental. In science, physical properties are defined by way in which they are measured; the principle is operationalism.

Our universe is about 14.3 billion years old, and as the entropy increases with expansion, the clock on the universe is running. Somebody claims that in roughly 20 trillion years or so, molecular motion will stop, and time will end.

Time itself is not established by molecular motion.

Time is more akin to a dimension. As spatial expansion nears the speed of light then time will stop.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 7:21:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2015 11:32:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/15/2015 11:44:11 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Time is inherently tied to the physical universe because time is only defined by changing events. The second is defined as the number of oscillations of a cesium atom. It might seem that that's arbitrary and that time would continue even if there were no motion to measure it, but it's fundamental. In science, physical properties are defined by way in which they are measured; the principle is operationalism.

Our universe is about 14.3 billion years old, and as the entropy increases with expansion, the clock on the universe is running. Somebody claims that in roughly 20 trillion years or so, molecular motion will stop, and time will end.

Time itself is not established by molecular motion.

Time is more akin to a dimension. As spatial expansion nears the speed of light then time will stop.
Nice special pleading. Not to be snarky, but do you have any evidence of this special dimension it exists in or as? Is it the same dimension as the flying spaghetti monster? And time can't stop because it has never started. Unless of course you know of a scientist that has observed time stopping and another that confirmed it through repeating the experiment. Do you have even one scintilla of evidence that proves time has a causal nexus with anything, anything at all? (Hint: aging is caused by the degradation of the support structure inside each individual cell, actually 30% of the human body has systems where cells do not suffer this degradation, so aging is not related to time). You don't have any evidence of this special dimension, so don't try and justify one. Time is just someone's God, with an idol built right in, a clock. God is someone else's God, except they didn't build an idol to worship they just made trinkets to represent their belief in said God. And if you think physicists are authorities on time, I'd like to see when this was established. There's a reason why one of the first time keeping devices was nothing more than something that tracked the position of the sun via the shadow it casts on a sundial. Time being expressed numerically is complete happenstance. If you think time exists anywhere other than the mind of man, prove it, as an atheist would say to a theist about God. If you can't, then God exists as a special kind of dimension too. Believe time exists , you believe God does or you're simply intellectually dishonest or have a double standard.