As to how they differ - I also literally stated differences in degree and differences in kind.
I then went on to explain what they meant.
I quoted a source that made that claim. It’s funny that the distinction is lost?
Didn’t say otherwise. Why do you keep raising irrelevant points like this?
Evidently from what you quoted me as saying, I was clarifying that is not what I was doing. Are you going to challenge that response or are you just going to ignore what I said to explain my position?
To clarify, I’m not taking this stance off my own back. If literature stated animals have morality, I would accept that. I’m just going by what I have read on the subject. When I quoted a source stating a difference between moral behaviours and morality, I accepted what it said and referenced that source.
yes, that is what I’m saying - humans are capable of morality, but that doesn’t mean they’re not capable of moral behaviours.
It’s like saying humans are capable of using tools to get food, but it doesn’t stop them from being able to just grab an apple from a tree and eat it.
Humans and animals have moral behaviour, and that the same behaviours in humans and animals are moral behaviours regardless of who/what is doing them. But humans also have morality, which involves reflection and principles etc.
Except that “there was” as a point-in-time might assume linear time wherein either if you go back far enough there was nothing and then suddenly something, or always something … however in terms of the big bang, it appears that time has no meaning in the singularity so it isn’t a question of what did or didn’t come before or when this universe came to be. It could be a closed loop of eternal expansion and contraction, for example. There are other hypotheses. I suspect others here can address it better than I, or correct me if I’m wrong, but in brief, my understanding is …
At both the singularity and the heat death of the universe, would be undifferentiated energy and matter respectively, and as there is no differentiation, there is nothing to measure relative to anything else, and thus no meaningful concept of time or distance or temperature.
The point being, when asking these questions, a single linear immutable arrow of time should not be assumed.
It is also a good idea to define what is meant by “nothing”. Space is not a perfect void; there are scattered molecules and bits of matter floating around, just so widely dispersed that it seems like a perfect void. I think a lot of people imagine a perfect vacuum that has perhaps never existed. Maybe there was truly nothing at some point, but not necessarily.
Until there’s a way to falsify these hypotheses, they have to remain conjecture (although I’m given to understand that the hypotheses of the big bang can be reasonably described with math at least, which is why it is widely accepted).
Then of course there is the multiverse hypothesis which would be another complication.
Of course it is, whether that evidence is sufficient is another matter. However I don’t need absence to be evidenced at all, when there is no remotely objective evidence something exists or is even possible, I am more than justified in withholding belief.
We have a universe, there is no objective evidence for any extant deity, that alone is sufficient for me to remain an atheist. This is not a 50/50 premise, the claim is with theism, I am disbelieving that claim.
I am shifting nothing, you admitted you had no objective evidence, so unless you’re denying the existence of the universe my claim is s statement of fact. though you seem to be misrepresenting it.
Ah another clipped quote, and the word certainty wasn’t in it anywhere, dear oh dear. My claim is quoted above verbatim.
It’s a question, and a suggestion, no assertion was made and no argument assigned anyone, so no straw man, obviously.
I haven’t, it seems you don’t know what a ? at the end of a sentence means. Though had I made it as a claim it would be a reasonable inference from your assertion I quoted.
Read the citations I offered, or don’t. if you think chimpanzees act only out of instinct you’re wrong. FWIW humans often act out of instinct, but they are not limited to it.
As have I, I can’t make the point any simpler.
That’s your statement.
Sophistry.
Clearly they were, else we can add arbitrarily to the list of words you don’t understand.
I will post as I am minded to, I need no pointers from someone whose posts are relentlessly irrational, and whose only response is the “no yours are” playground taunt.
it’s a question, what you’ve quoted has zero relevance to it or my response.
Ah, from your assertion it wasn’t clear, but you mean the thread OP, not your claims to discussing a purely hypothetical deity, which I obviously haven’t and don’t accept.
I can’t simplify the phrase “can have” anymore sorry.
I haven’t denied this thread is a hypothetical, only that the deity you’re defining arbitrarily is not purely hypothetical, I think I have been pretty clear on that point.
It precisely explain what i was rejecting, again I can’t dumb this down any more. I am rejecting your unevidenced assumptions.
I disagree, please don’t aske me what I am disagreeing with, as it can’t be made any clearer.
Straw man.
Wrong again.
A hypothetical can’t define reality, or affect it in anyway. This is also another of those unevidenced assumptions I rejected.
Yet you did precisely this, so we’re back to that claim as nonsensical.
Sophistry, or rank stupidity, take your pick.
I disagree.
It was quoted, I guess we’ll never know now, as you were booted for racism apparently.
Hallelujah, finally.
Hence my point that you were not discussing a PURELY hypothetical deity, quod erat demonstrandum.
The former possessing necessary traits, and the latter not, as we can imagine anything want, so wrong again.
Time is a characteristic of the material physical universe, so the word always loses its meaning, you’re making absolute claims about a condition before the universe we currently observe existed, and applying what we currently understand to that. FWIW I have no idea what absolute nothingness means, or if it is even possible. Oh and the htird option that evaded you here is “I don’t know”.
An essay can’t be cited as evidence for its own claims, obviously.
It’s funny whatever the source, it’s also untrue, and I am being polite.
I didn’t say you had said otherwise, and the point is not irrelevant.
“What do the fields of cognitive science and scientific psychology tell us about chimpanzees’ potential for morality? First of all, the four traits that we have discussed (self-awareness, calculated reciprocity, moralistic aggression, and empathy) are normal phenomena empirically confirmed in the species. Second, these four traits, taken both separately and in conjunction, provide a minimal framework with which prescriptive rule making can take place within the chimpanzee community. Third, food sharing exhibits qualities of socially demarcated moral space in which an ethical ideal of equality seems to exist outside of the normal, rankrelated hierarchy. Chimpanzee societies seem to function according to a simple system of obligation and blame that recognizes when individuals fail to meet the ideal of equality in the food distribution context; it is right that individuals should share, and it is wrong that they should not share. This suggests that the common ancestor to chimpanzees and humans was able, albeit within limited circumstances, to appraise actions of others in a rudimentary moral fashion. What, then, is chimpanzee morality? Chimpanzees most likely have a limited sense of agency related to their level of self-recognition that allows them to assess similar mental states in others (Povinelli and Godfrey 1993). Likewise, it seems likely that chimpanzees possess not only a theory of mind but, as a concomitant phenomenon of mind itself, a rudimentary moral awareness. Within a time and space in which community ideals exert power over the egocentric agency of individuals through the use of prescriptive rules, a moral context of exchange is established: moral, since it deals with behavior inextricably bound up with acquisition of the resources and goods most important to the continued well-being of individuals within the community, that is, food, sex (de Waal 1989c, 198222), security, and so forth. Community sanctions operate so as to reward those who meet obligations of just exchange and punish transgressors by exclusion from the social flow of resources. Finally, given the roles of agency, obligation, blame, and empathy in human moral systems and the presence in chimpanzees of their corresponding empirical markers, it would seem unparsimonious, even at the highly evolved level of social interaction, to assign a term other than morality to certain types of communal regulation that take place in chimpanzee societies.”
Anyway the poster is gone, but FWIW there is plenty of research out there that destroys his claim, and makes the claim he cited in the Stanford philosophical encyclopaedia, that asserted universal acceptance for its assertion, quite risible.
Yes, I accept that some views of the big bang expansion identify it as the beginning of space-time so asking what was before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole, etc.
But I don’t see these possibilities as either incompatible with the binary choice or presenting a third choice.
In view of the “no time before time” concept for the big bang, this would be a timeless eternity of existence - no “beginning of existence” from which there was a timeless eternity of non-existence.
Whether the universe is presumed to emerge from a quantum virtual particle disparity that created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter / energy that would cancel each other out to a zero energy sum, any such foundational quantum state would still be a “something”.
Eternal expansions and contractions would be an eternal, cyclical something, even the multiverse hypotheses would still be “something”, just expanding on the realm (dimensions, etc.) in which the somethings are.
It’s pushing my knowledge of cosmology a bit, but as I understand it, the singularity precursor for the big bang suggests that density and temperature was infinite, however this wouldn’t be possible, so it really means the physics breaks down at the general relativity scale and the extremes of density and temperature exceed what can be measured under GR. energy/matter wouldn’t be differentiated however because if it were perfectly uniform, it would be static and we wouldn’t have had the big bang expansion occur to begin with. So even on a small scale, there must have been some differentiation to trigger this.
At the other end, with heat death, although on a scale, there would be no macro-level activity, and depending on whether protons are stable or break down, there may not even be any matter on any scale, it would only be undifferentiated on a cosmic scale. There would still be activity going on - rises and falls in temperatures on localised scales as energy/particles interact, and in accordance with the uncertainty principle, there would still be random change meaning that time would still continue indefinitely even at a minute scale of change.
In terms of nothing as opposed to something, it would be absolute nothingness - no laws of physics, no quantum state and virtual particles popping into and out of existence, no space/time, no other universes or a multiverse. Absolute nothing.
Absence of unexpected evidence is not evidence of absence
Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence
So for example, the absence of footprints in the snow would be evidence that no one has visited. If someone had claimed they had visited a property recently, and the snow didn’t show signs of footprints, etc., then the absence of evidence would be evidence that the claim was false.
However this is dependent on there being expected evidence. Granted, this can apply to some theological claims - if for example, a claim is made of a global flood occurring at a specific time period, then the absence of geological signs of such a uniformly timed event in global geology would be evidence that the specific claim - from a geological perspective at least - isn’t valid.
but in terms of a metaphysical claim, there would be no expected evidence to support such a claim (i.e., it would be unfalsifiable) so the absence of unexpected evidence would not be evidence of absence.
As to your point about withholding belief - I’m sure I have already agreed on this point with you that by all means, I am not challenging your justification to withhold belief. Just because absence of unexpected evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence, we’re still at the default state of uncertainty, so there’s no need or expectation for any person to adopt a belief on something unevidenced (from an objective evidence perspective).
As above, that’s completely fine. I was just making this point from the perspective that I was explaining why I was calling it hypothetical. I am not trying to push your position in any way, I was merely trying to explain why I was maintaining an objective, balanced view that wasn’t committing to either possibility and treating it purely as hypothetical.
A statement of fact is that neither a godless universe or a universe with a deity can be presented as having objective evidence in support of it. Obviously the universe exists and that is not in dispute, but there is no means to evidence the absence of deities or the presence of deities so neither view from an objective evidence standpoint can be favoured.
When I stated you had the burden of proof / shifted the burden of proof, it was purely in relation to your claim that one of these is favoured (that we have a godless universe). This is distinct from any belief you have or withhold - I am not questioning your position from a belief/absence of belief standpoint, but the issue only came about because I was treating both types as hypothetical to avoid any argument over either one being evidenced, and you claimed that we had the godless universe, which as an expressed claim, carries the burden of proof. If you want to withhold your belief, and take the position from a belief standpoint that we have a godless universe, that is fine. It is not incompatible with my referring to it in a hypothetical sense, but if you insist on asserting it as a claim, my answer can only be that as a claim that you are trying to argue to me against my neutral position treating both as hypotheticals for the purposes of this discussion only, a claimant has the burden of proof.
A claim of something being is a claim of certainty. I am sure I have previously referenced certainty vs uncertainty - uncertainty is the default position where there is no evidence either way (or somehow the evidence for and against is equal) - uncertainty is “does an xyzzy exist?” - the initial position is uncertainty - zero knowledge, zero evidence. As/if knowledge/evidence is acquired, then the position can shift from uncertainty to a position of certainty.
If we consider uncertainty to be position 0, certainty will be a scale moving away from 0 either to the negative (certainty against the thing) or the positive (certainty for the thing)
So if someone makes a claim in any capacity, it is a claim for certainty. Certainty is a range - absolute certainty would be at the extreme end(s).
Okay, I’ll admit I was incorrect to call it a strawman. It was however a complex question fallacy. By asking the question, I am being pressured to break out of the hypothetical frame.
I am not seeking to justify my theistic beliefs or to challenge anyone here to justify their atheistic beliefs. We don’t need to fight over this point - we can just stick to the morality question.
I didn’t say chimpanzees or any non-human animal only acts out of instinct. You also cut my quote where I said “acted out instinctively or socially”, and I’m not saying that non-human animals only act out of instinct or socially either. That was specifically about moral behaviours - being acted out instinctively or socially.
I would like to read the citation you mention, but as per my previous comments, I haven’t seen the link. If you can provide a link or a title for the article, I will read it.
You’re misrepresenting again. You trimmed my quote to just two words on the outer quote and ignoring the context before and after. I’m not even sure what the purpose of this was? Are you trying to suggest that I quoted myself and then called it your statement? To what end?
Here’s sufficient context to identify what was actually stated (a full quote to give the full context would over-complicate this response and I presume from your clipping of my quote, you weren’t intending to discuss the full context further anyway)
We can add this point to the list of points that have been quoted back and forth to the extent that any link to the original point has been lost.
If you have an issue with specific attributes I have stated are necessary, by all means, state the attribute and explain why you disagree with them - I would be happy to discuss them further, but I need to know which attributes you disagree with and why, so there is something to work with. Otherwise, this point may as well just disappear into the ether because we’re just talking past each other otherwise.
Okay. Well, I established my position as discussing within a hypothetical from an outset. It’s a pity you don’t want to accept that, but it is your prerogative. it does mean that a discussion is going to be difficult as we will be talking past each other. Given your intractability on this point, there’s no point in my further responding to any points that challenge my position as being hypothetical - I think it’s reasonable that you’ve established you won’t accept it, and I’ve established it is my position for the discussion, so even if we are in disagreement, it isn’t likely going to change through further argument.
I didn’t ask you to dumb anything down. I asked for more specificity and evidence for the claim that I have made unevidenced assumptions.
It’s very difficult to respond to points like this when instead of clarifying what you’re rejecting, you just double down on rejecting the thing.
I am not asking for clarity to be awkward, difficult or deceptive. I genuinely want to know what your disagreements are with the things I’ve said, so I can either address them, or if I’m incorrect, acknowledge them, or if I’ve not made my point clear or have been misunderstood, to provide clarity/explanation.
A strawman would require me to distort your argument to something weaker. I have addressed your argument directly. If you provide a reason for dismissing what you consider evidenced claims (along with the specific claims you are dismissing) I have something to address, etc. as above. but if you just declare your dismissal of them, it doesn’t make it so, because you haven’t evidenced why they are being dismissed.
Wrong about what exactly? Your ambiguous response doesn’t help here.
I’m talking within a hypothetical frame. In the hypothetical frame, I have made the statement that reality would be defined by the entity. That is to say that if reality in totality was just the entity and nothing else, then reality would be defined by the entity.
This doesn’t mean I am talking about the current reality as it is now. I am saying that if there was/is a creator deity (hypothetically), then prior to creation, being the totality of reality, reality would be defined by that creator deity.
If it helps, the breakdown is as follows:
Suppose a creator deity exists.
Prior to creation, nothing else exists.
Therefore, the totality of reality at that stage = the deity.
Therefore, reality is defined by the deity.
What are you claiming I made up?
I’ll go with neither. I accept that you disagree, but reality doesn’t revolve around you. Great. You disagree. Either engage with the point within that disagreement or not. Ad-hominem doesn’t progress the discussion.
No, that’s not how it works. You don’t get to cut my quote and then claim victory. As per below this is the context:
Point 1 is clearly a claim that is non-hypothetical. It is a claim being made in the real world.
Point 2 then contextualises this real world claim with the hypothetical. As point 2 specifies the entity in question and states it is hypothetical, this evidences that I am discussing a purely hypothetical deity.
It’s no different to the following:
We are having a discussion (this is not a hypothetical - it is demonstrably taking place in the real world)
Hypothetically, in this discussion, I might bring up an example
Notice how point 2 can maintain something hypothetical while point 1 references the real world?
I didn’t make an absolute claim about a condition before the universe. I have stated that from a purely logical perspective, there are two possibilities. Something, or absolutely nothing. It doesn’t matter that time (asin space-time) is a construct of this universe. Time is a measure of change, so in the context of change (X - Y) time is the order - X before Y.
Absolute nothingness means literally that - no matter/energy, no quantum state, no laws of physics, literally absolutely nothing. No things of any type. No math, no logic, no rules/laws, no concepts, the complete absence of absolutely anything in any form whatsoever.
That’s not a third option. That’s a position in relation to the binary choice.
If someone asks about the state of a light in a closed room, the binary choice is “off” or “on”. The fact that someone doesn’t know whether it is off or on doesn’t add a third state to the light. The light is either one or the other - it is either off or on, regardless of whether anyone knows which.
I cited the essay as evidence for my claim. If you are questioning the essay itself, it contains citations to other sources, as one would expect from a legitimate scholarly source. If you have the means to rebut the source, please do so. If you’re just going to rebut scholarly sources generally, that’s not going to get very far.
If you claim an evidenced source is untrue, what evidence do you have to support this claim?
And I didn’t say that you said I had said otherwise. If the point is not irrelevant, what is the relevance of the point?
Thank you for the link and details for the article.
I don’t see it as disagreeing with the link I posted for the most part. The various points that it cites about behaviours/socialising are matched in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article. The only point of slight divergence is at the end where the author has chosen to support the use of the term “morality” to these behaviours, whereas the SEP states that the almost universal view has been that “moral or normative cognition” is denied in non-human animals.
In this sense, it’s just a variance on the definitions for morality. Your article is assigning the word specifically in a limited, context dependent state, while the SEP is taking the more advanced requirement of “moral or normative cognition”.
But thank you again for the article, it is an interesting read.
My own view is that humans tend to be biased toward their own exceptionalism on this question and I think it’s far safer (and assumes less) to treat morality as more developed in humans (due to a more sophisticated level of abstract thought), nothing more.
Personally I have come around to the view that the broader animal kingdom deserves representation and a voice in our legislative and policy decisions and reviews and should no longer be viewed as mere resources to exploit or to which humans have an innate right because of some hand-waving claim that we are, uniquely, “made in the image of God”. The way I see it, even people who don’t explicitly think about that particular view, have their lack of empathy for “lower” animals ultimately grounded in that, whether they realize it or not. If one sees the earth and the animal (and plant) kingdom as man’s god-given domain to do with as we pleases, it encourages our worst and most selfish and unaware impulses, and leads to a lot of the ecological mayhem we see.
Indeed, fundamentalists in particular will often say that puny humans can’t possibly influence the weather, that is God’s domain, and he wouldn’t let that get out of hand no matter how we behave. It is throat-choking levels of entitlement.
So I see the morality quesiton as just one more manifestation of this, and am wary of philosophical consensus that tends to coalesce around the notion of inherent human exceptionalism, whether explicitly religious or not.
Is eternity as we understand it even possible without time as a reference? I am dubious.
Existence of what?
I also don’t think we can currently know, and can’t therefore say that time didn’t exist prior to TBB, even in some form that differs somehow from what we know perceive.
Well I am neither a physicist or a philosopher, but I do know that as a state, something is demonstrably possible, I am unaware of any evidence that nothing is a possible state.
Of course an absence of evidence where would expect to see some is more compelling , than if we have no idea what would constitute evidence for any claim, but that absence would still be “evidence” of the phenomena being absent, it just wouldn’t be sufficient alone to make definitive claims.
I guess this come down to what threshold one sets for personal credulity, and why.
indeed, but an example of a claim that has been demonstrably falsified is some low hanging fruit. For me I would not invest belief in any unfalsifiable claim or its negation.
I disagree, this is where the word sufficient when applied to evidence is important, and of course it depends whether we are talking about disbelief or making a contrary claim, the latter must carry a burden of proof, whereas the former does not.
Well that’s a subjective personal choice anyway, what threshold to set, but that threshold once set, need not be a subjective standard.
I think they both carry a burden of proof, but not an equal one. And disbelieving the claim something exists has no burden of proof of course.
unproven, as there is no scientific evidence suggesting it to be legit. That essay is still under debate. If it were factual, there would be no debating it by those who read it.
I agree on the points you raise about the animal kingdom having better representation and so on. As a meat-eater, I wouldn’t agree going as far as to protect animals from being a source of food, but I do have the view that animals handled by humans should be treated humanely, not experience unnecessary suffering, and the human impact on the environment needs to be remedied.
I don’t see the question of animal morality as contingent to this. Human morality should be a sufficient reason to not subjecting sentient life to undue suffering.
I understand how religion can shape people’s views - I can only say that were I to encounter such views being expressed, I would oppose them if the medium in which they were expressed allowed for my feedback.
in terms of exceptionalism, I would say it brings moral responsibility. We know better so we must do better.
I think we are limited in how we can understand eternity as a concept in either type.
That said, we can consider the existence of timeless eternities even if we may struggle with the comprehension. A timeless eternity need not be located outside our linear time universe.
Consider a moment in time, any specific moment from the past. Imagine that moment in isolation - it is a frozen, static moment. There is no time because that would be the transition from that moment to the next, but within that singular moment, there is no change, no time. It is a timeless moment.
The moment is from the past - it happened, and because it happened it will always be that it happened. That moment existing within time, but itself timeless, is eternal. There will never be a time when that moment decays - when history itself crumbles to nothing. That single moment is a snapshot of the past in perpetuity, and will last forever - timeless.
Note that words like moment and forever highlight the difficulty in comprehension - we are built around concepts of time, so even describing a timeless state can involve time-based metaphors.
Also, to clarify, time is being defined as change.
as to 2. “Existence of what?” - that’s the all important question. In terms of this specific part of the discussion, “not nothing.”
Agreed.
Absence of unexpected evidence is like looking for an elephant in a box, and concluding elephants don’t exist.
There are innumerable examples in science where something has only been found/discovered after the means to look for it have been developed. Before those developments, the discoveries naturally had no known evidence to support them.
As you say though, personal credulity is another matter entirely, and up to the individual.
Technically the example I gave works for both - as a falsifiable claim, it has been disproved. But I inserted the conditional, “from a geological perspective at least” - from a metaphysical perspective, it becomes unfalsifiable (as all metaphysical claims can be - they begin from the unfalsifiable position, but may become falsifiable if evidence is found to support it - on the basis that the evidence itself is falsifiable)
So in the flood claim, the invalidation of what would otherwise be supporting evidence (if it showed signs of a global flood) renders the potentially falsifiable claim invalid, leaving just the unfalsifiable metaphysical claim (in terms of the example)
I agree that disbelief doesn’t have a burden of proof, the same applies to belief (except internally, but then as you point out, belief is an affirmation of a claim - internally that is; disbelief is a rejection of a claim, not a new claim to the contrary, so no burden of proof)
Not sure what part of what I said you disagree with, because it was about a claim, not belief/disbelief.
A metaphysical claim does have a burden of proof, sure, but equally, the contrary claim also has the burden of proof, and absence of unexpected evidence for a metaphysical claim would not count as evidence against the claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, sure, but in terms of equality - I would say both claims are equal in a logical, objective sense - putting aside any bias about a deity or absence of a deity, the measure of equality is not in the thing itself, but in the thing being proved or disproved. Both are of equal magnitude.
I agree in terms of disbelief/absence of belief/withholding belief not having any burden of proof, of course.
When it comes to the question of morality from a scientific basis, what is that basis? Science can tell us that certain things exist, but the question of morality is more of a philosophical question. Morality is a concept, not a tangible thing.
The essay quoted two oppositional, competing views on morality in humans, and the views were different on whether there was a difference in degree or kind in different aspects of moral behaviours, etc.
In terms of difference in degree - I doubt anyone would argue any greater than this - it is empirically observed that any moral behaviours in animals are less advanced than humans in every aspect, so at the very least, there is a demonstrable difference and it is one in degree at least, if not in kind.
The point I made from the essay was based on the unity of those two different views - that there was at least an agreement on one aspect that was considered a difference in kind.
I don’t see why the essay would be under debate when it was essentially a literature review of the two predominant views and a comparison of the two.
Morality in general is going to be a matter for philosophical discussion for a long time yet.
The above has nothing to do with reality, and it is just trying to find a gap to fit a deity in between the cracks of our knowledge about nature and the universe using nonsensical verbiage. In other words, you’re just engaging in semantic wankery.
Or I could say, with equal confidence: Blasphemy! Brian, the Rainbow-Farting Unicorn (the source of all joy and all shenanigans, praise him by observing His rainbows!) is most certainly timeless, as he can manipulate time and space (including reversing and inverting spacetime) so that he goes undetected while he goes about his business. Normally, he lives in my garage, but only if I don’t look.
I made no statement about a deity in relation to timeless eternities. This point was specifically about timeless eternity and in response to a previous comment about timeless eternity being possible.
In this thread generally, I have maintained the position from the outset that any deity considered is purely hypothetical for the necessary means of addressing the thread OP, and I have made no attempt to claim or make an argument in favour of a deity existing - just discussing in relation to the question of morality for a hypothetical deity.
But this particular point was even removed from that - it was merely about the possibility of “timeless eternity”, which I would argue is a possibility even if one considers a hypothetical godless universe - one way or another there would either be an timed or timeless eternity. My point about singular “static” moments being timeless eternities too would also apply regardless of whether one considers a deity or not. The point being made had no bearing on deities, nor does it lend support for or against in any way.
