Sound reasons for naturalism, materialism,empiricism etc Pleeeeeeeaaazzz!

[Nearly Sane]

Non spatio temporal means that it cannot be pinned down to one place or time or if you like it is eternal and everywhere.

Secondly, can you give a citation that being is a temporal claim?

Nothing can be pinned down to one time. Indeed your inept attempt at a definition, which I will at least applaud because it is at least an attempt, as opposed your usual vacuous rambling, points out your complete grasplessness of any idea of coherence in this. And just to bring you back to the issue that you are avoiding. Existence is a temporal claim. How does non temporal as an attribute work in that?

[Gordon]

I believe I have characterised it in the description I gave of it.

Your characterisation, such as "non spatio temporal", is inept as NS has pointed out - how can something be said to exist outwith time or space: how could you identify it in the first place?

In terms of knowledge. That I know about it doesn't affect that things existence or otherwise does it?

But how do you 'know' about it, Vlad: if the existence of this "non spatio termporal" thing is indeed known to you then what items of knowledge do you have about it, epistemology-wise?

For example, on re-reading this particular point of yours, you seem to be saying that there is a difference between what you think you 'know' and the "existence or otherwise" of the thing you think you know about, and this seems to open up the possibility that you think you have knowledge of something that might not exist - and that makes no sense.

There is a lot of talk in the scientificcommunity that Maths is the basis of reality and Maths would certainly fit the description I gave.

But Maths is axiomatic, Vlad, and not a 'thing' that can be said to exist "non spatio temporally" - I think you are grasping at things thoughtlessly.

In view of this i'm not sure the question ''why would you think that there was more than the material'' is particularly an intelligent one.

It is a perfectly intelligent question to at least ask: remember the risk of those pesky 'unknown unknowns' cannot just be dismissed, but it wouldn't be intelligent to answer that there could be more than the natural, as opposed to "material", in the absence of a method suited to the non-natural, since without such a method 'non natural' is a meaningless term.

[jeremyp]

Non spatio temporal means that it cannot be pinned down to one place or time or if you like it is eternal and everywhere.

Secondly, can you give a citation that being is a temporal claim?

Can you give an example of something that is non spatial temporal that definitely exists please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nothing can be pinned down to one time. Indeed your inept attempt at a definition, which I will at least applaud because it is at least an attempt, as opposed your usual vacuous rambling, points out your complete grasplessness of any idea of coherence in this. And just to bring you back to the issue that you are avoiding. Existence is a temporal claim. How does non temporal as an attribute work in that?

Thank you for your applause. It is most gracious.
By spatio temporal I mean all observed processes and objects are observed or predicted to have lasted for a period of time and to occupy space. Can the universe be described thus. If so then I believe we are looking at either 1) It popped out of nothing or 2) it is contingent on something else.
 The alternative is that the universe has been around forever and if so I doubt we can say that it has lasted for a period of time or that it could be reasonably said to occupy a space.

I am still not convinced, for some of the above reasons that existence is a temporal claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside's lost it.

Nope. For as long as you persist in asking people to justify terms whose meanings you've redefined for your own amusement, you're trolling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. For as long as you persist in asking people to justify terms whose meanings you've redefined for your own amusement, you're trolling.

No......I like arguments Hillside and I am grateful that posters have seen past you and made argument that is above your playground level and a bit more than argumentum ad ridiculum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No......I like arguments Hillside…

That’s clearly a lie. You have never had any interest in arguing honestly about anything.

… and I am grateful that posters have seen past you and made argument…

That’s another lie. People here know full well that you just make up your own definitions of various philosophical terms in order to complain that others can’t justify them. That’s just you trolling. What some have done though is to ignore the dishonest subject question and to talk about a different issue from the one you tried to sneak in.

…that is above your playground level…

Identifying your trolling isn’t playground level anything.

… and a bit more than argumentum ad ridiculum.

You’ve never understood (or have always chosen to lie about) the appeal to ridicule. What you actually receive (and have always received) is the reductio ad absurdum rebuttal – ie, if your attempts at argument lead equally well to plainly absurd conclusions then your arguments are wrong. Bluehillside’s fourth maxim remember: “If an argument for god works just as well for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument.”

The reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate logical rebuttal; your recharacterisation of it as an appeal to ridicule is just your evasion of your problem.

[Outrider]

I think this shifts things away from favouring philosophical materialism to merely operating.

Surely one of the justifications for a particular philosophy is that it works?

Why 'operate' like you suggest?

Because we need to operate, and if you have to do something why not do something that demonstrably works rather than something that doesn't?

In other words you seem like you want your cake and eat it here.

Doesn't everyone?  The difference is, this way, you actually can.

You don't want admit a to a belief although you betray one by 'operating' in a certain way...…...and you are keen to be seen as a methodological materialist......strange.

Not at all, a philosophy doesn't sit in isolation from reality, and therefore why should it be purely one way product from logic to manifestation, why is there not a capacity for feedback and verification?

I am a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one. In other words in matters of material.....I am methodologically materialist.

And?

Is that different from your position? If so....how is it different.

I've no idea - if you presume, in the absence of any justification, that there is something more than the material then yes there's a difference.

O.

[Outrider]

I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments. That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.

Anything can be considered a possibility - there might or might not be magic - but you don't include it unless there's a justification or you end up with a philosophy so cluttered and convoluted that it's meaningless.

O.