> 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
>> 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
>>> consciousness, and what to put in their place, if anything.

>

>> Why would we want to "explain away" anything?

>

>>> My question is, is there any created thing that can hold out against
>>> the onslaught of the new philosopher?- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> 'Explain away' is the best phrase I could find for denying the
> existence of objects (such as the objects of science and psychiatry)
> and appearances. I struggled with it. I didn't like it because it
> sounded like the sort of thing that science does.