Terrapin Station

No, not logically. You'd need to specify the logical difference. Spell it out. Show your work.

How specifically would the premises differ (and in terms of logic)?

Why couldn't the same logic say that if there is our experiences there is necessarily a universe?

So if we were to say something like "the universe is necessary for our experiences" that wouldn't be magical thinking re the universe (sans God) neces...

So no knowledge of a better philosophy board?

But that's magical thinking on your definition.

Time travel isn't possible period. Time isn't a "place you can travel to." Time is simply change ( including motion). Additionally, nominalism is true...

Does anyone know of a philosophy board where it's not like talking to "educated morons"/"intelligent retards," regardless of whether people are really...

What happened to the part after the word "and"?

That's fine, but weren't you talking about the reason for God's existence? Why/How God exists in the first place? You're not saying that the reason fo...

Wait, so the reason that god that exists is that he's the explanation of the universe, so that his existence hinges on that? God didn't exist prior to...

So in the case of God, the reason is?

So I have to wonder how you're defining "magical." What does that refer to, exactly? What are the criteria for a claim being magical versus not-magica...

If either side of the choice of "always existed" or "spontaneously popped into existence" is "magical thinking," then " magical thinking" is unavoidab...

"The universe has always existed by virtue of its own, necessary, nature."--what does that have to do with "timelessness"? You could say exactly the s...

Why not? Wouldn't you be able to talk "properly" about God without even using the word "universe"?

That's simply using "universe" in a different way, which is fine. That's just not the way I use the term. The way I use the term doesn't change anythi...

Which is in line with the notion that either something always existed or that whatever exists spontaneously appeared.

How is it "magical talk" when those are the only options?* If you introduce god, either he has always existed (maybe in timeless existence if you thin...

You're either trolling or you're unbelievably dense.

I'm probably not going to talk about anything else until you answer that, no? You could ask again, as if that might make me not think that you're trol...

Seriously, are you trolling?

My usage of the term wouldn't change anything whatsoever about anyone's ontology. It just changes whether we're saying that something belongs to the u...

Again: Are you seriously not trolling? That's not a rhetorical question. I want you to seriously answer.

Ditto

Are you seriously not trolling? It seems incredibly difficult for you to understand something really simple.

I'm not making a technical point whatsoever, so stop trying to interpret it like I'm writing a computer program. "Being everything" = "everything" as ...

It's part of it if you think there's more than that thing in it. If you think there's only that thing in it, then it's the universe. I'm not being per...

Obviously there's no difference in my usage. "Being everything--x is part of what I just defined as everything" So, why isn't that an answer?

How about explaining why the answer I'm giving you doesn't count as an answer in your view? If you don't know the answer and I do, then how would you ...

Everything is a term for all objects, all phenomena, etc. Anything that occurs, appears, etc. in any manner. Do you understand the sentence above?

If there are timeless and immaterial things, per how I use language, the universe has timeless and immaterial things.

Now you're being all Aspieish about "part." That's not the idea. If there is an x--whatever imaginable x is--I label it as "the universe"

That's not understanding the difference between (a) an argument for or against anything, and (b) a stipulation about how I'm using a term. I'm not say...

I don't agree with that, no. How am I implicitly arguing something?

It just can't be this difficult to communicate something so simple.

In my comment about how I use the word "universe," I'm not arguing anything, for or against. Do you understand this?

It's not a conclusion. It's a stipulation about how I'm using a term. Let's try to get one thing sorted out at a time so that I don't have to keep rep...

The elaboration of what "everything" refers to is this: "a term for all objects, all phenomena, etc. Anything that occurs, appears, etc. in any manner...

Let's try this: what part of this sentence do you not understand? "Everything is a term for all objects, all phenomena, etc. Anything that occurs, app...

I already answered this above.

But it's not an argument, lol. Only arguments can have argumentative fallacies. It doesn't make any sense to apply argumentative fallacies to things t...

The prohibition isn't against speech. It's against promising something and not delivering it. Not sure why that wouldn't be a clear distinction to you...

I already answered this. Re contracts, it's not any sort of speech restriction. It's not stopping anyone from saying anything they want to say. It's j...

Re "beyond the universe" I'm telling you how I use the term "universe." That's not an argument, it's a statement about a concept per my usage. Re the ...

The begging the question fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument assumes the conclusion of the argument. I don't even know what you'd be readin...

There can't be something "beyond" the universe. If there were a god, the god would be part of the universe. Again, I use "universe" to refer to everyt...

I wasn't aiming to retype/rephrase what you asked. I was commenting on the notion of "proper" and whether I was saying anything about it. Weird that t...

In any event, instead of trying to find creative ways to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about, how about realizing that differentiation ...

You keep bringing up existence. I'm not saying anything about it.