> God or nature created the physical universe. This covers most views.
> And for the many species of idealists, God or nature created
> appearances.

>
> The task of the new philosopher is to undermine both views and explain
> away each and every created physical object and appearance. The most
> difficult task is to explain away space, time, change, and
> consciousness, and what to put in their place, if anything.

> On Oct 12, 8:18 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>

>> God or nature created the physical universe. This covers most views.
>> And for the many species of idealists, God or nature created
>> appearances.

>
> Sorry but you have an unfounded assumption in your question.
> John, when did you stop beating your wife?
> Your question assumes that the universe was "created".
> The obvious problem with this is that there is an emotive connotation
> that a "creation" implies a "creator".
> But worst that that is the assumption that there was once a time when
> the universe came into being. There is absolutely no justification for
> that assumption. There is no reason to suppose that existence has not
> always been, well, existing.
>
>
>

>> The task of the new philosopher is to undermine both views and explain ...

> On Oct 14, 9:35?am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

>> The obvious problem with this is that there is an emotive connotation
>> that a "creation" implies a "creator".
>> But worst that that is the assumption that there was once a time when
>> the universe...

> On Oct 14, 9:35?am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Oct 12, 8:18 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>

>>> God or nature created the physical universe. This covers most views.
>>> And for the many species of idealists, God or nature created
>>> appearances.

>

>> Sorry but you have an unfounded assumption in your question.
>> John, when did you stop beating your wife?
>> Your question assumes that the universe was "created".
>> The obvious problem with this is that there is an emotive connotation
>> that a "creation" implies a "creator".
>> But worst that that is the assumption that there was once a time when
>> the universe came into being. There is absolutely no justification for ...

> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192382004.942451.247950@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Oct 14, 9:35?am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> The obvious problem with this is that there is an emotive connotation
>>> that a "creation" implies a "creator".
>>> But worst that that is the assumption that there was once a time when
>>> the universe came into being. There is absolutely no justification for
>>> that assumption. There is no reason to suppose that existence has not
>>> always been, well, existing.

>

>>>> The task of the new philosopher is to undermine both views and explain
>>>> away each and every created physical object and appearance. The most
>>>> difficult task is to explain away space, time, change, and ...

> On Oct 14, 6:13 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Oct 14, 9:35?am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Oct 12, 8:18 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>

>>>> God or nature created the physical universe. This covers most views.
>>>> And for the many species of idealists, God or nature created
>>>> appearances.

>

>>> Sorry but you have an unfounded assumption in your question.
>>> John, when did you stop beating your wife?
>>> Your question assumes that the universe was "created".
>>> The obvious problem with this is that there is an emotive connotation
>>> that a "creation" implies a "creator". ...