M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.
Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.
If at all, it could be eternal.
Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.
Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.
I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing can be imagined. I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined. It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.
I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true. It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.
In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not time, as we understand it, has always existed is odd. Just cut to the chase. If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist. I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.
You imagined it, but won't describe it?
Odd, that.
You let me know how an all knower could not KNOW that it is all knowing, in your imagination, or I'll take it as a concession.
But if it doesnt know its all knowing, thats a piece of knowledge it doesnt posess thus its no longer even an all knower. hurr dee durr durr durr
Also - let's do these premises one at a time.
Which premise cannot be logically refuted? Also - make sure it's also PROVEN, ABSOLUTELY, before you're asking for refutation. Because then, it's not even necessary to refute because it's merely an assertion.
You misread my post. I don't disagree with you . . . assuming you're talking about God, not an artificial intelligence or a computer programed to "believe" that the knowledge it possesses at any given moment = all knowledge.