Free will, freedom from what?

[Immanuel Can]

Oh guess what, it's not a proof, just an argument.

I'm sorry, Atla...I'm just not finding conversation with you interesting or stimulating. I can't be bothered chasing you down the rabbit trails of faux misunderstanding anymore. I'd rather talk to somebody who can get into the intellectual flow of a discussion.

Do your thing. I've lost any interest in convincing you of anything.

[Atla]

Oh guess what, it's not a proof, just an argument.

I'm sorry, Atla...I'm just not finding conversation with you interesting or stimulating. I can't be bothered chasing you down the rabbit trails of faux misunderstanding anymore. I'd rather talk to somebody who can get into the intellectual flow of a discussion.

Do your thing. I've lost any interest in convincing you of anything.

Yes yes run along Mr. Nobel

[Will Bouwman]

So far, so good?

Well;

There had to be something prior to the universe, obviously...

I don't think you make it over the first hurdle. While it may seem obvious to you, we currently have no way of telling whether it is true. This:

...because the universe is a contigent and entropic entity, not a necessary and eternal one.

certainly doesn't qualify. Words like contingent and necessary simply aren't relevant in cosmology.

Our universe manifests that it is the product of cause and effect.

How? There are processes within the universe that demonstrate cause and effect, but it does not follow that the universe is the product of such a process.

And we can say that certainly some kind of energy preceded the universe, though we can't yet say more.

'Energy' is a woefully abused word that, as used by people who don't know what they're talking about, effectively means 'magic'. Energy, for all its forms, is fundamentally kinetic or potential (mass, as in E=mc2 being an example) - movement or the potential to move. So without anything to move, 'energy' is meaningless.

What was the source and nature of that energy, is the relevant next question.

This is the point at which

...we can make up any story that pleases us about the things we cannot see.

And if something

eternal, uncaused, powerful, order-producing...and capable of generating this universe

is what pleases you, that is what you are likely to find.

[Will Bouwman]

...clocks are made by humans. Water clocks, candle clocks, escapement clocks, electronic clocks, how long it takes an ox to plough a furlong.

Clocks do not create events, nor do they create the span between those events.

As Belinda points out creating events is exactly what clocks do.

So you've mistaken the human measurement device (the clock) for the reality it tries to measure (time itself).

What is "time itself"? All clocks do is divide the drift between the big bang and the eventual heat death of our "entropic" universe into smaller events that we can count to do things like boil an egg to our satisfaction.

[Age]

...clocks are made by humans. Water clocks, candle clocks, escapement clocks, electronic clocks, how long it takes an ox to plough a furlong.

Clocks do not create events, nor do they create the span between those events.

As Belinda points out creating events is exactly what clocks do.

So you've mistaken the human measurement device (the clock) for the reality it tries to measure (time itself).

What is "time itself"? All clocks do is divide the drift between the big bang and the eventual heat death of our "entropic" universe into smaller events that we can count to do things like boil an egg to our satisfaction.

Once again, the belief that the Universe absolutely began, and will absolutely cease to exist rares its 'ugly head', as some would say, here again.

Although clocks and watches were invented, created and used to measure the duration between perceived 'events' the continual drift, flow, or motion of the Universe, Itself, is irrefutably eternal, and just because only a relatively few human beings only, in the days when this was being written, were not yet capable of seeing, and comprehending and understanding,.that it is an absolutely theoretical and empirical impossibility for the Universe to begin, and end, these people, still, believed this, absolutely. Like 'this one' continually shows and proves here.

[Will Bouwman]

Dear future reader in the days when this will be read, Age defines the universe as whatever exists. Given that whatever exists at any moment is whatever exists, then it is true that whatever exists is whatever exists. I'm sure you will be giddied by such a vertiginous intellect.

[Belinda]

Clocks do not create events, nor do they create the span between those events.

As Belinda points out creating events is exactly what clocks do.

So you've mistaken the human measurement device (the clock) for the reality it tries to measure (time itself).

What is "time itself"? All clocks do is divide the drift between the big bang and the eventual heat death of our "entropic" universe into smaller events that we can count to do things like boil an egg to our satisfaction.

Once again, the belief that the Universe absolutely began, and will absolutely cease to exist rares its 'ugly head', as some would say, here again.

Although clocks and watches were invented, created and used to measure the duration between perceived 'events' the continual drift, flow, or motion of the Universe, Itself, is irrefutably eternal, and just because only a relatively few human beings only, in the days when this was being written, were not yet capable of seeing, and comprehending and understanding,.that it is an absolutely theoretical and empirical impossibility for the Universe to begin, and end, these people, still, believed this, absolutely. Like 'this one' continually shows and proves here.

Clocks are nothing if not measurements. Without measuring time, space, and force, these ideas can't be thought by man or beast.
If God is a meaningful then God must therefore be eternal that is to say outside beyond, above time and, it follows, outside of measurements.

( it's not my fault that English lacks a preposition suited to explaining eternity)

[Age]

As Belinda points out creating events is exactly what clocks do.

What is "time itself"? All clocks do is divide the drift between the big bang and the eventual heat death of our "entropic" universe into smaller events that we can count to do things like boil an egg to our satisfaction.

Once again, the belief that the Universe absolutely began, and will absolutely cease to exist rares its 'ugly head', as some would say, here again.

Although clocks and watches were invented, created and used to measure the duration between perceived 'events' the continual drift, flow, or motion of the Universe, Itself, is irrefutably eternal, and just because only a relatively few human beings only, in the days when this was being written, were not yet capable of seeing, and comprehending and understanding,.that it is an absolutely theoretical and empirical impossibility for the Universe to begin, and end, these people, still, believed this, absolutely. Like 'this one' continually shows and proves here.

Clocks are nothing if not measurements.

I do not understand what, 'Clocks are nothing if not measurements'. Are these the words that you wanted to use, and the only words, here?

Without measuring time, space, and force, these ideas can't be thought by man or beast.

What 'ideas'?

And, what is 'time', and, 'space', exactly, which you claim here can be measured?

If God is a meaningful

If God is a meaningful 'what', exactly?

then God must therefore be eternal that is to say outside beyond, above time and, it follows, outside of measurements

you are completely confusing "yourself" here. And, this is because you are believing things to be absolutely true before you have any actual proof of, nor for.

( it's not my fault that English lacks a preposition suited to explaining eternity)

What are you on about, here?

The word 'eternity' just refers to always, temporally.

The Universe exists eternally, or always temporally, NOW. And, this is an unambiguous irrefutable proved Fact.

[Belinda]

Dear future reader in the days when this will be read, Age defines the universe as whatever exists. Given that whatever exists at any moment is whatever exists, then it is true that whatever exists is whatever exists. I'm sure you will be giddied by such a vertiginous intellect.

'Exist' ought to be thought of as a process of change and nothing but a process of change, in which there is no essential anything.

I say "ought". If anyone aims to live a good life(and who in the end doesn't) then they need to remember that their Dasein i.e. who they are from moment to moment is in constant change sometimes fast change sometimes slow slow change.

[Age]

Dear future reader in the days when this will be read, Age defines the universe as whatever exists. Given that whatever exists at any moment is whatever exists, then it is true that whatever exists is whatever exists. I'm sure you will be giddied by such a vertiginous intellect.

Now, considering that I have never ever defined the 'Universe' this way, the rest is absolutely moot.

And, the fact that "will bouwman" made 'the False claim' here that it just did, to try to' deceive you readers here shows that it cannot back up nor support its continual claim and belief that the Universe, Itself began.

In fact if absolutely any one questioned or challenged "will bouwman" over its beliefs and claim here, then "will bouwman" will prove that it has absolutely no proof at all for its belief and claim that the Universe began, nor for even that the Universe is expanding, which is another belief and claim that 'this one' keeps making here. In fact it does not even have any 'actual evidence' for its belief and claim here, yet it continues to keep making it.

[Age]

Dear future reader in the days when this will be read, Age defines the universe as whatever exists. Given that whatever exists at any moment is whatever exists, then it is true that whatever exists is whatever exists. I'm sure you will be giddied by such a vertiginous intellect.

'Exist' ought to be thought of as a process of change and nothing but a process of change, in which there is no essential anything.

But, there is the, essential, One, eternal, Thing.

I say "ought". If anyone aims to live a good life(and who in the end doesn't) then they need to remember that their Dasein i.e. who they are from moment to moment is in constant change sometimes fast change sometimes slow slow change.

[Will Bouwman]

Dear future reader in the days when this will be read, Age defines the universe as whatever exists. Given that whatever exists at any moment is whatever exists, then it is true that whatever exists is whatever exists. I'm sure you will be giddied by such a vertiginous intellect.

Now, considering that I have never ever defined the 'Universe' this way...

Wassat ken? You don't think the universe is whatever exists?

[Immanuel Can]

So far, so good?

Well;

There had to be something prior to the universe, obviously...

I don't think you make it over the first hurdle. While it may seem obvious to you, we currently have no way of telling whether it is true. This:

...because the universe is a contigent and entropic entity, not a necessary and eternal one.

certainly doesn't qualify. Words like contingent and necessary simply aren't relevant in cosmology.

Actually, they very much are. The same conclusion I'm drawing has been made by much better minds than mine, based on a much fuller knowledge of things like the red shift effect (Borde, Guth and Vilenkin, for example). In fact, it's no exaggeration to say that the Hubble discovery was the most recent absolute revolution in cosmology. The speculative attempts to evade the data recently, such as the multiverse hypothesis and string theory have come out of this very crisis, in fact; and the fact that they are purely speculative models is testimony to just how challenging even the critics found the data.

So I've got the data on my side. On the other side, speculative models that collapse against the data. And there's certainly enough expert opinion on my side to bolster the case sufficiently for it to be taken seriously.

Our universe manifests that it is the product of cause and effect.

How? There are processes within the universe that demonstrate cause and effect, but it does not follow that the universe is the product of such a process.

Let's see if that's true. What aspect of the universe do you believe is not subject to a cause-effect relation? And if there is something outside of cause-effect, it must be eternal, obviously, for it must not be subject to entropy...I'll be interested to see what you can come up with.

What was the source and nature of that energy, is the relevant next question.

This is the point at which

...we can make up any story that pleases us about the things we cannot see.

And if something

eternal, uncaused, powerful, order-producing...and capable of generating this universe

is what pleases you, that is what you are likely to find.

Not so easy as you suggest.

The problem is the alternative. What non-intelligent but eternal, uncaused, powerful, order-producing...and capable of generating this universe entity can you propose?

If you can locate none, then you're down to one hypothesis, are you not?

[Immanuel Can]

...clocks are made by humans. Water clocks, candle clocks, escapement clocks, electronic clocks, how long it takes an ox to plough a furlong.

Clocks do not create events, nor do they create the span between those events.

As Belinda points out creating events is exactly what clocks do.

Let me know if your egg timer ever creates an omelette.

If a clock and time were the same, you could make yourself young again by rewinding your watch.

So you've mistaken the human measurement device (the clock) for the reality it tries to measure (time itself).

What is "time itself"?

That's an excellent question. I remember somebody saying, "Time is the way we measure our proximity to death." That's a little cynical and one-sided, of course, but it's not entirely wrong. Time can, indeed, be a metric of entropy. But it has several definitions, as any look at the dictionaries will quickly reveal. It's a very complex question.

However, I have already suggested one definition: time is the interval between points. I have said these can be points in space, or points in a process. That's not a complete or only definition, but it certainly is a good definition.

In any case, one thing we know for sure: it isn't a clock. Whatever we say it is, time existed before chronology, and would exist after chronology went away, too, just as the oceans existed before there were the words "Atlantic" and "Pacific." The human attempt to measure is only a measurement device, not the thing itself.

[Age]

Dear future reader in the days when this will be read, Age defines the universe as whatever exists. Given that whatever exists at any moment is whatever exists, then it is true that whatever exists is whatever exists. I'm sure you will be giddied by such a vertiginous intellect.

Now, considering that I have never ever defined the 'Universe' this way...

Wassat ken? You don't think the universe is whatever exists?

What do you even mean by 'whatever exists', exactly?

And, why do you believe the Universe began?

Also, how could it even be possible, logically and physically, for the Universe to even begin?

Furthermore, let 'us' not forget that you made a False accusation and claim 'about me', to further mislead and deceive the readers here.