I’m better understanding and more appreciating Skeptic69 and where he is coming from. Skeptic invested himself into some heavy thought answers to Jamie’s questions. Let’s see how I react to his answers.
Skeptic responds to Jamie’s question about beginnings …
“1)”Creation” (what I simply refer to as ‘existence’) is not perfect and cannot be. How could you even establish such a criteria? What other reality did you observe and measure THIS ‘creation’ against to determine this one was “perfect”? What are the criteria for “perfection”? How many planets and stars exist in a “perfect” universe?”
Perhps Jamie should not have included perfection in her question. I do wonder though about the perfection of the “classical mechanics” of how nature works. I can’t imagine it being an accident or even an always was. It doesn’t matter how many stars are perfect.
Jamie asked: Are you willing to bet your life on it, and did you ever wonder what happens if you are wrong?
Skeptic answered …
“What you mean to ask is ‘Are we willing to bet our potential afterlives on it?.’ … the concept of an afterlife is so nonsensical that I cannot give it any credence or likelihood of being true. … I could theoretically “bet” on a bottlecap I tossed off a building landing on another bottlecap on the ground of the exact same type/brand. Highly unlikely but not impossible.
Afterlife concepts are more like square shaped circles. They are logically impossible by definition.”
It looks like Skeptic has given this some thought. He says it is not impossible. You must get off this square shaped circle kick, Skeptic. I understand that it’s your way of saying something is nonsense.
Jamie now asks about the composition of matter and those “classical mechanics” that compose all of existence. Skeptic responds …
“This is wrong on all counts. There is no “smallest” unit of matter. Physics tells us the infinite regression is the nature of the universe. No matter how small a unit of matter or an event is, it can always be broken down into yet smaller bits. No matter how old our universe is, it is only a subset of an infinite system.
We know this because there can be no existence of “nothingness”. That is nonsensical. And existence itself requires time as a component by definition (go ahead and try defining an existent entity not bound by linear time).”
This is the Skeptic answer I find most fascinating. Physisists, at least according our current knowledge, do not claim that matter can be broken down into ever smaller parts. That would be a pure speculation. Events too? I suppose. The way I understand it atom particles like electrons and neutrons cause and participate in events within the atom and with other atoms. They cause forces that cumulatively affect all parts of the universe. But the real point of Skeptic’s speculation “forever smaller” is that he can’t imagine nothingness, which would require a beginning, unless of course we’re talking about afterlife.
Skeptic continues with his linear time pitch …
“… existence itself requires time as a component by definition (go ahead and try defining an existent entity not bound by linear time).”
And yet gravity is defined as an instant force. Perhaps Skeptic can give us a more accurate definition for gravity that requires linear time.
Now Jamie asks about spirituality. She mentions our feeling various emotions and our precepts for morals. She asks, “how does this fit in with … how we and the rest of everything came to be? Skeptic responds …
“None of that makes the least bit of sense to me. I have no idea what a “spirit” might actually be, aside from a nebulous concept tossed around by theists.”
Wow! Skeptic here portrays himself as a total and pure reality person, no emotions, no morals and most certainly no spirit. I know this isn’t true. Skeptic argues his views with passion. Methinks here he argues his view with a bit too much spirit that in this instance distorts his reality.
George H. Birkett