> 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".
>>> 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.

>
> My "explain away" objection was little more than a digression.
> My real point was the critique of the use of the term "create".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -