Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect

[baker]

Then you lose at your own game. Omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience contradict each other, they cannot be attributes of the same personal being. Note that by showing to have knowledge (implied in omniscience) and power to act (implied in omnipotence), the entity at stake would have to be a personal being, one with free will.

As Dan Barker explains it:

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

Next one, please.

Unless God is also someone who is into enjoyment and pleasure (and occasionally mischief).

Do you have a favorite dish? You know exactly what it tastes like, but you desire to eat it again and again.

Knowing the future is not a detriment to enjoyment. And God, not being subject to aging, illness, death, or scarcity of resources, gets to do things solely to enjoy himself.

[NickGaspar]

Okay so Scientia who has 170 subscribers and 4 videos on his channel, has made a video that explains that the cosmos is not bigger than the universe, there is no physical difference between them. So Scientia agrees with me and disagrees with you. You got me, I guess?

"Okay so Scientia who has 170 subscribers and 4 videos on his channel"
-Fallacious argument ad populum. The video offers a brief presentation of the different uses of those words.
Steven was completely wrong about your ethos.

Yes yes whatever you need to tell yourself

Last chance, words have more than one common usage.
I posted you a couple of links informing you for the common shared use of the word "Cosmos" by many cosmologist and theoretical physicists (like Brian Green and Lawrence Krauss) .
Your job as an interlocutor is to listen to those links and inform your understanding on the definition I use in my arguments.
Your job is not to make fallacious attacks to the links I provided you... Those links are only to inform you on this different use of the word, they are not asking your approval!
After all, this Definition is well defined and instrumentally valuable and relevant to discussions on the philosophical implications of our observations on Cosmology, not useless equations of completely different concepts (like Philosopher19's).

The quotes coined by Physicist Brian Green (The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse) and Scientia (Cosmologists use theories to explain the cosmos, while astronomers uses measurements and observations to explain the universe) prove your limited knowledge and understanding you have on the field and how definitions work!
Now your sophistries, all this tap dance, straw manning, Ostrich policy, denying common usages of words because you happen to ignore just prove that you are not mature enough to handle any exposure of your intellectual and knowledge gaps.
So any future reply in the form of immature"whatever" type of response commonly used by "oppressed" teenagers , will prove my points above and will verify the place I have saved for you together with Philosopher19 and evolution.
Btw there are forums for Theism and Mythology, why don't you go there

[NickGaspar]

Then you lose at your own game. Omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience contradict each other, they cannot be attributes of the same personal being. Note that by showing to have knowledge (implied in omniscience) and power to act (implied in omnipotence), the entity at stake would have to be a personal being, one with free will.

As Dan Barker explains it:

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

Next one, please.

Unless God is also someone who is into enjoyment and pleasure (and occasionally mischief).

Do you have a favorite dish? You know exactly what it tastes like, but you desire to eat it again and again.

Knowing the future is not a detriment to enjoyment. And God, not being subject to aging, illness, death, or scarcity of resources, gets to do things solely to enjoy himself.

What are your bases for all those conclusions and details for such a cultural concept? I mean, often people open discussions on the Hypothetical realm of the Supernatural and its deities, making a long list of claims and hours of conversation about details and qualities of this "analytic" realm, without any objective foundations. How the lack of a concrete foundation can ever serve the goals set by Philosophy. (Use of credible knowledge in the construction of wise claims that could expand our understanding about our wold ).
My second question is why people still think that god or the supernatural is philosophical subject of discussion?

[Atla]

Last chance, words have more than one common usage.
I posted you a couple of links informing you for the common shared use of the word "Cosmos" by many cosmologist and theoretical physicists (like Brian Green and Lawrence Krauss) .
Your job as an interlocutor is to listen to those links and inform your understanding on the definition I use in my arguments.
Your job is not to make fallacious attacks to the links I provided you... Those links are only to inform you on this different use of the word, they are not asking your approval!
After all, this Definition is well defined and instrumentally valuable and relevant to discussions on the philosophical implications of our observations on Cosmology, not useless equations of completely different concepts (like Philosopher19's).

The quotes coined by Physicist Brian Green (The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse) and Scientia (Cosmologists use theories to explain the cosmos, while astronomers uses measurements and observations to explain the universe) prove your limited knowledge and understanding you have on the field and how definitions work!
Now your sophistries, all this tap dance, straw manning, Ostrich policy, denying common usages of words because you happen to ignore just prove that you are not mature enough to handle any exposure of your intellectual and knowledge gaps.
So any future reply in the form of immature"whatever" type of response commonly used by "oppressed" teenagers , will prove my points above and will verify the place I have saved for you together with Philosopher19 and evolution.
Btw there are forums for Theism and Mythology, why don't you go there

I'm honestly beginning to think you have serious comprehension issues.

We checked like 6-7 dictionaries, all of them stated that cosmos and universe are used as synonimes. Physically they are the same, cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

We looked at the Scientia video which also stated they are the same physically, the cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

Fabric of the cosmos: universe or multiverse also means that depending on what we consider all there is to be, cosmos = universe, or cosmos = multiverse. So no, cosmos is not bigger than the universe, or cosmos is not bigger than the multiverse. But here we used the other meaning of universe.

Everything you accuse mo doing, you're the one doing in. You've unnecessarily dug yourself into such a deep hole that I'd pity you, weren't you so aggressively trying to discredit me. And yes when it comes to the familiar patterns and human behaviour you also brought up, you're then one fitting a pretty sad and pathetic pattern of the ~50 year old Dunning-kruger fools, who for the first 40 or so years of their lives had nothing to do with science, then read a few books and suddenly think that they now know everything, and start berating others with an obsession. You're the one coming across like a Theist.

[baker]

What are your bases for all those conclusions and details for such a cultural concept?

The Bhagavad Gita, the Srimad Bhagavatam.

I mean, often people open discussions on the Hypothetical realm of the Supernatural and its deities, making a long list of claims and hours of conversation about details and qualities of this "analytic" realm, without any objective foundations.

I think it only makes sense to talk about God when referring to some established theistic texts, such as the Bible, the Quran, or the texts mentioned earlier.
Otherwise, one is talking about a god that is merely an abstract product of one's imaginings.

My second question is why people still think that god or the supernatural is philosophical subject of discussion?

Agreed. Religion and philosophy are NOMAs.

[philosopher19]

What is not to be had, is simultaneous acts of choice: once you picked, that is the one act of choice.

We are in agreement on this.

The choosing among options is necessarily a contingent action (it can happen or not) and knowledge about this action is therefore synthetic a posteriori knowledge, not analytic a priori knowledge. For god's omniscience, we are concerned (also) about the synthetic a posteriori knowledge of its actions. And we are back to the same problem. In the end, it seems that what you're actually arguing is that god cannot exercise contingent actions, but to follow a predestined fate. That would be a claim against its free will and omnipotence.

If it is an a posteriori matter, then the synthetic a posteriori knowledge is not knowledge to be had until it has become determined from a state of being undetermined. Whilst it is absolutely undetermined, all that is knowable is that it is undetermined. In other words, all that is knowable about the undetermined, is that it is undetermined. Omniscience does not require knowing beyond all that is knowable. Knowing beyond all that is knowable is an absurd proposition.

For x to be a part of "all that is knowable" in the manner that you have in mind, it must at least be determined as an item of knowledge. What God will Will beyond the a priori, is not determined. It is not an item of knowledge. If something is absolutely random, then what it will generate/choose is not knowledge to be had, because it is not contingent upon anything else. Its randomness is absolute. What it will generate/choose will only become determined once it has actually generated/chosen, not before.

In any case, saying that there are things unintelligible to a god is to limit its knowledge, it cancels its infinite wisdom, and omniscience goes down the drain.

No it doesn't. Omniscience = knowing all that is knowable or intelligible. If something is not knowable or intelligible, then it is not knowable or intelligible. And if it's not knowable or intelligible, then it is not a part of "all that is knowable or intelligible", is it?

A 10th sense is unintelligible to us, but it is not a known absurdity. It is an unknown. A round square is unintelligible to all. It is a known absurdity. It is not an unknown to us like a 10th sense is.

So with that in mind, you decide: Is God knowing its own future beyond the a priori an absurdity, or an unknown?

If it is an absurdity (as is the case with any x knowing what it would decide before it actually decides beyond the a priori), then it is not an item of knowledge. It is not a knowable thing. It is therefore irrelevant to Omniscience. Agreed?

If it is an unknown, then we cannot bring it into rational discourse other than to highlight the fact that it is an unknown (and not an absurdity). For example:

If you say to me God is not Omniscient because He does't know what it's like to have a 10t sense, I would say to you you don't even know what a 10th sense is for you to bring it into rational discourse. You have not given me an intelligible objection to Omniscience.

[philosopher19]

What are your bases for all those conclusions and details for such a cultural concept?

The Bhagavad Gita, the Srimad Bhagavatam.

I mean, often people open discussions on the Hypothetical realm of the Supernatural and its deities, making a long list of claims and hours of conversation about details and qualities of this "analytic" realm, without any objective foundations.

I think it only makes sense to talk about God when referring to some established theistic texts, such as the Bible, the Quran, or the texts mentioned earlier.
Otherwise, one is talking about a god that is merely an abstract product of one's imaginings.

My second question is why people still think that god or the supernatural is philosophical subject of discussion?

Agreed. Religion and philosophy are NOMAs.

Do you think it justified/rational to believe in a semantically inconsistent (contradictory) theory/statement?

Do you think it justified/rational/right to have a semantically inconsistent (contradictory) belief?

If you are shown that the following two beliefs are semantically inconsistent (contradictory), will you change beliefs? The beliefs are:

Existence (that which exists everywhere, also known as the Omnipresent) is finite.
Existence (the Omnipresent) is imperfect.

[philosopher19]

Philosopher wrote:

Yes, but do you not think that all beliefs (whether mine's or yours or anyone else's) need to be semantically consistent (as opposed to contradictory (semantically inconsistent))?

Pure reason pertains only to mathematics and classical logic. In real life we use probability.

Statistical probability is a branch of mathematics. However statistics are for interpreting. We support reason, and this morning we read of unreason i.e. semantic inconsistency amounting to cynicism or mental deficiency of the government. Because we do not know everything we do not , however, claim our bias towards what main scientists tell us is pure reason.

Pure reason pertains to everything reasonable. Any empirical observation you make you interpret in line with a priori principles. If x says Jack is at the park, and y says Jack is at home, pure reason tells you that it is semantically inconsistent for you to believe that Jack is both at the park, and at home, at the same time. The only reason you don't believe Jack to be in two different places at the same time, is because pure reason tells you that no one person/thing can be in two different places at the same time. Pure reason also tells you that something cannot come from nothing. Pure reason also tells you that 1 + 1 = 2. Pure reason also tells you that Existence is Infinite and Perfect.

You still haven't answered my question:

Is it justified/right/reasonable to believe in semantically inconsistent (contradictory) beliefs/theories/statements?

Jack is relatively in a place. If Jack is at the side of the park closer to his home he is relatively more home than if he were at the further side of the park. Moreover 'park' and 'home' are socially-defined terms.

If someone is telling you where Jack is the truth is in the intention of the person who is telling you.

Do you think that x can be in two separate places at the same time? Like do you think Jack can be in Mexico and Japan, at the same time?

Do you think something can come from nothing?

Do you think it justified/reasonable/right to believe in a semantically inconsistent (contradictory) theory/belief/statement?

[NickGaspar]

Last chance, words have more than one common usage.
I posted you a couple of links informing you for the common shared use of the word "Cosmos" by many cosmologist and theoretical physicists (like Brian Green and Lawrence Krauss) .
Your job as an interlocutor is to listen to those links and inform your understanding on the definition I use in my arguments.
Your job is not to make fallacious attacks to the links I provided you... Those links are only to inform you on this different use of the word, they are not asking your approval!
After all, this Definition is well defined and instrumentally valuable and relevant to discussions on the philosophical implications of our observations on Cosmology, not useless equations of completely different concepts (like Philosopher19's).

The quotes coined by Physicist Brian Green (The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse) and Scientia (Cosmologists use theories to explain the cosmos, while astronomers uses measurements and observations to explain the universe) prove your limited knowledge and understanding you have on the field and how definitions work!
Now your sophistries, all this tap dance, straw manning, Ostrich policy, denying common usages of words because you happen to ignore just prove that you are not mature enough to handle any exposure of your intellectual and knowledge gaps.
So any future reply in the form of immature"whatever" type of response commonly used by "oppressed" teenagers , will prove my points above and will verify the place I have saved for you together with Philosopher19 and evolution.
Btw there are forums for Theism and Mythology, why don't you go there

I'm honestly beginning to think you have serious comprehension issues.

We checked like 6-7 dictionaries, all of them stated that cosmos and universe are used as synonimes. Physically they are the same, cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

We looked at the Scientia video which also stated they are the same physically, the cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

Fabric of the cosmos: universe or multiverse also means that depending on what we consider all there is to be, cosmos = universe, or cosmos = multiverse. So no, cosmos is not bigger than the universe, or cosmos is not bigger than the multiverse. But here we used the other meaning of universe.

Everything you accuse mo doing, you're the one doing in. You've unnecessarily dug yourself into such a deep hole that I'd pity you, weren't you so aggressively trying to discredit me. And yes when it comes to the familiar patterns and human behaviour you also brought up, you're then one fitting a pretty sad and pathetic pattern of the ~50 year old Dunning-kruger fools, who for the first 40 or so years of their lives had nothing to do with science, then read a few books and suddenly think that they now know everything, and start berating others with an obsession. You're the one coming across like a Theist.

1st of all "we" didn't check any dictionaries.You claim you did and for a weird reason you skipped the second definition of Cosmos....
Even the simplest search on "cosmos" will provide two basic definitions.
-the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.
-a system of thought.
I my self shared links and quotes from different sources for the meanings of those two words that are based on that second definition
The first was http://www.differencebetween.net/scienc ... -universe/
-"The words “cosmos” and “universe” are used synonymously as they refer to the same concept which is the world or nature. “Universe” seems to have a narrower or smaller scope than “cosmos,” though, and “cosmos” signifies a larger and more complex system".
The second was documentary by known science communicator Brian Green's. The title of the documentary was
"The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse". The theoretical concept of Cosmos includes any type of Universe(s) we end up with!
The third was a detail explanation by Scientia on how the different uses Cosmos and universe has by cosmologists and astronomers!
1. If you use measurements and observations you are describing the Universe. If you are using hypotheses and philosophy you are describing the cosmos.
2.Cosmologist use theories to explain Cosmos ( the theoretical bigger picture of the universe that include multiverses or parallel or any other state) while astronomers use measurements and observations to explain the working of the physical universe.

-"Physically they are the same, cosmos is not bigger than the universe."
-Now this statement illustrates your inability to read and focus on other peoples points! The usage of cosmos in cosmology doesn't refer to a "physical" aspect of the universe, but its a theoretical domain where all our working hypothesis rest! Its an theoretical framework ready to accept any possible new theory that is verified in the future and might alter our current understanding of the universe".
So, as I said to you more then once, the term Cosmos IS NOT a extra physical realm, but a Theoretical container for all our scientific theories that are not currently describing a verified relation between a phenomenon and known processes of our universe.

You has one simple job to do as a interlocutor and that was to put your ego aside and focus on the definition I use, use the links I provided you to understanding it better and STOP your ridiculous strawman accusations (introducing additional physical realms and entities).
Since you are the one who uses iron age action figures(Jesus) in your sentences and rejects to listen and accept a well explained definition...guess who is the superstitious one in this conversation. One thing is sure, its not me.

I think this is getting exhausting and ridiculous....actually its the most ridiculous conversation I have ever had with an interlocutor who childishly attempts to reject a verified and documented definition by closing his ears and banging his feet, basing his all argument on an ad populum fallacious and with the only goal in mind to save what is left of his ego....Sad

[Atla]

Last chance, words have more than one common usage.
I posted you a couple of links informing you for the common shared use of the word "Cosmos" by many cosmologist and theoretical physicists (like Brian Green and Lawrence Krauss) .
Your job as an interlocutor is to listen to those links and inform your understanding on the definition I use in my arguments.
Your job is not to make fallacious attacks to the links I provided you... Those links are only to inform you on this different use of the word, they are not asking your approval!
After all, this Definition is well defined and instrumentally valuable and relevant to discussions on the philosophical implications of our observations on Cosmology, not useless equations of completely different concepts (like Philosopher19's).

The quotes coined by Physicist Brian Green (The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse) and Scientia (Cosmologists use theories to explain the cosmos, while astronomers uses measurements and observations to explain the universe) prove your limited knowledge and understanding you have on the field and how definitions work!
Now your sophistries, all this tap dance, straw manning, Ostrich policy, denying common usages of words because you happen to ignore just prove that you are not mature enough to handle any exposure of your intellectual and knowledge gaps.
So any future reply in the form of immature"whatever" type of response commonly used by "oppressed" teenagers , will prove my points above and will verify the place I have saved for you together with Philosopher19 and evolution.
Btw there are forums for Theism and Mythology, why don't you go there

I'm honestly beginning to think you have serious comprehension issues.

We checked like 6-7 dictionaries, all of them stated that cosmos and universe are used as synonimes. Physically they are the same, cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

We looked at the Scientia video which also stated they are the same physically, the cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

Fabric of the cosmos: universe or multiverse also means that depending on what we consider all there is to be, cosmos = universe, or cosmos = multiverse. So no, cosmos is not bigger than the universe, or cosmos is not bigger than the multiverse. But here we used the other meaning of universe.

Everything you accuse mo doing, you're the one doing in. You've unnecessarily dug yourself into such a deep hole that I'd pity you, weren't you so aggressively trying to discredit me. And yes when it comes to the familiar patterns and human behaviour you also brought up, you're then one fitting a pretty sad and pathetic pattern of the ~50 year old Dunning-kruger fools, who for the first 40 or so years of their lives had nothing to do with science, then read a few books and suddenly think that they now know everything, and start berating others with an obsession. You're the one coming across like a Theist.

1st of all "we" didn't check any dictionaries.You claim you did and for a weird reason you skipped the second definition of Cosmos....
Even the simplest search on "cosmos" will provide two basic definitions.
-the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.
-a system of thought.
I my self shared links and quotes from different sources for the meanings of those two words that are based on that second definition
The first was http://www.differencebetween.net/scienc ... -universe/
-"The words “cosmos” and “universe” are used synonymously as they refer to the same concept which is the world or nature. “Universe” seems to have a narrower or smaller scope than “cosmos,” though, and “cosmos” signifies a larger and more complex system".
The second was documentary by known science communicator Brian Green's. The title of the documentary was
"The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse". The theoretical concept of Cosmos includes any type of Universe(s) we end up with!
The third was a detail explanation by Scientia on how the different uses Cosmos and universe has by cosmologists and astronomers!
1. If you use measurements and observations you are describing the Universe. If you are using hypotheses and philosophy you are describing the cosmos.
2.Cosmologist use theories to explain Cosmos ( the theoretical bigger picture of the universe that include multiverses or parallel or any other state) while astronomers use measurements and observations to explain the working of the physical universe.

-"Physically they are the same, cosmos is not bigger than the universe."
-Now this statement illustrates your inability to read and focus on other peoples points! The usage of cosmos in cosmology doesn't refer to a "physical" aspect of the universe, but its a theoretical domain where all our working hypothesis rest! Its an theoretical framework ready to accept any possible new theory that is verified in the future and might alter our current understanding of the universe".
So, as I said to you more then once, the term Cosmos IS NOT a extra physical realm, but a Theoretical container for all our scientific theories that are not currently describing a verified relation between a phenomenon and known processes of our universe.

You has one simple job to do as a interlocutor and that was to put your ego aside and focus on the definition I use, use the links I provided you to understanding it better and STOP your ridiculous strawman accusations (introducing additional physical realms and entities).
Since you are the one who uses iron age action figures(Jesus) in your sentences and rejects to listen and accept a well explained definition...guess who is the superstitious one in this conversation. One thing is sure, its not me.

I think this is getting exhausting and ridiculous....actually its the most ridiculous conversation I have ever had with an interlocutor who childishly attempts to reject a verified and documented definition by closing his ears and banging his feet, basing his all argument on an ad populum fallacious and with the only goal in mind to save what is left of his ego....Sad

Okay you have a comprehension disability.

Your Scientia video states that universe and cosmos are PHYSICALLY THE SAME.

Your Brian Green pdf starts with stating that he's using the NEW meaning of the universe. NOT THE OLD ONE, where universe = all there is, but the new one where universe is contrasted with multiverse. The multiverse is a HYPOTHESIS and yes here cosmos = multiverse.

Get back to me when your brain has processed the above. Universe and cosmos describe the same thing, just maybe differently. The nature/scale of the explanation may be different. NOT the nature/scale of what is being explained. I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

[NickGaspar]

What are your bases for all those conclusions and details for such a cultural concept?

The Bhagavad Gita, the Srimad Bhagavatam.

Sure, we have cultural sources (scripts). My question is not where you get those ideas but how you verify objectively the details in their claims. After all a script in reality is just recorded human claims of the past. They don't carry any special epistemic weight!

I think it only makes sense to talk about God when referring to some established theistic texts, such as the Bible, the Quran, or the texts mentioned earlier.

Of course it make sense to talk about those cultural concepts. I don't doubt their cultural foot print! I am questioning their philosophical value.
I understand if the conversation was on how those texts merge in our modern culture, but where is the philosophical value or relevance of all those claims, conclusions,details , hypothesized qualities that people try to attach on indemonstrable supernatural presumed concepts?

Otherwise, one is talking about a god that is merely an abstract product of one's imaginings.

-Great observation that illustrates the whole point I try to make. How revisiting abstract products, possibly imagined by past generations (since we can not have objective evidence to tie them to reality) can ever enrich them with philosophical or epistemic value?
An indemonstrable claim will always be a claim and it can never be used as an epistemic foundation for our wisdom and understanding .
Well we can label our conclusions wise or knowledgeable but in reality we don't have any epistemic justification to do that.

Agreed. Religion and philosophy are NOMAs.

-Thank you for your honesty.
I will add though that religion can be the a subject of philosophical inquiry. The dogmas or religions can be studied for their philosophical influence on peoples worldviews.
The problem I found in these conversations is that the analytic approach of those claims do not produce a synthetic value thus they can never really expand our understanding about our world.

[NickGaspar]

Last chance, words have more than one common usage.
I posted you a couple of links informing you for the common shared use of the word "Cosmos" by many cosmologist and theoretical physicists (like Brian Green and Lawrence Krauss) .
Your job as an interlocutor is to listen to those links and inform your understanding on the definition I use in my arguments.
Your job is not to make fallacious attacks to the links I provided you... Those links are only to inform you on this different use of the word, they are not asking your approval!
After all, this Definition is well defined and instrumentally valuable and relevant to discussions on the philosophical implications of our observations on Cosmology, not useless equations of completely different concepts (like Philosopher19's).

The quotes coined by Physicist Brian Green (The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse) and Scientia (Cosmologists use theories to explain the cosmos, while astronomers uses measurements and observations to explain the universe) prove your limited knowledge and understanding you have on the field and how definitions work!
Now your sophistries, all this tap dance, straw manning, Ostrich policy, denying common usages of words because you happen to ignore just prove that you are not mature enough to handle any exposure of your intellectual and knowledge gaps.
So any future reply in the form of immature"whatever" type of response commonly used by "oppressed" teenagers , will prove my points above and will verify the place I have saved for you together with Philosopher19 and evolution.
Btw there are forums for Theism and Mythology, why don't you go there

I'm honestly beginning to think you have serious comprehension issues.

We checked like 6-7 dictionaries, all of them stated that cosmos and universe are used as synonimes. Physically they are the same, cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

We looked at the Scientia video which also stated they are the same physically, the cosmos is not bigger than the universe.

Fabric of the cosmos: universe or multiverse also means that depending on what we consider all there is to be, cosmos = universe, or cosmos = multiverse. So no, cosmos is not bigger than the universe, or cosmos is not bigger than the multiverse. But here we used the other meaning of universe.

Everything you accuse mo doing, you're the one doing in. You've unnecessarily dug yourself into such a deep hole that I'd pity you, weren't you so aggressively trying to discredit me. And yes when it comes to the familiar patterns and human behaviour you also brought up, you're then one fitting a pretty sad and pathetic pattern of the ~50 year old Dunning-kruger fools, who for the first 40 or so years of their lives had nothing to do with science, then read a few books and suddenly think that they now know everything, and start berating others with an obsession. You're the one coming across like a Theist.

1st of all "we" didn't check any dictionaries.You claim you did and for a weird reason you skipped the second definition of Cosmos....
Even the simplest search on "cosmos" will provide two basic definitions.
-the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.
-a system of thought.
I my self shared links and quotes from different sources for the meanings of those two words that are based on that second definition
The first was http://www.differencebetween.net/scienc ... -universe/
-"The words “cosmos” and “universe” are used synonymously as they refer to the same concept which is the world or nature. “Universe” seems to have a narrower or smaller scope than “cosmos,” though, and “cosmos” signifies a larger and more complex system".
The second was documentary by known science communicator Brian Green's. The title of the documentary was
"The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse". The theoretical concept of Cosmos includes any type of Universe(s) we end up with!
The third was a detail explanation by Scientia on how the different uses Cosmos and universe has by cosmologists and astronomers!
1. If you use measurements and observations you are describing the Universe. If you are using hypotheses and philosophy you are describing the cosmos.
2.Cosmologist use theories to explain Cosmos ( the theoretical bigger picture of the universe that include multiverses or parallel or any other state) while astronomers use measurements and observations to explain the working of the physical universe.

-"Physically they are the same, cosmos is not bigger than the universe."
-Now this statement illustrates your inability to read and focus on other peoples points! The usage of cosmos in cosmology doesn't refer to a "physical" aspect of the universe, but its a theoretical domain where all our working hypothesis rest! Its an theoretical framework ready to accept any possible new theory that is verified in the future and might alter our current understanding of the universe".
So, as I said to you more then once, the term Cosmos IS NOT a extra physical realm, but a Theoretical container for all our scientific theories that are not currently describing a verified relation between a phenomenon and known processes of our universe.

You has one simple job to do as a interlocutor and that was to put your ego aside and focus on the definition I use, use the links I provided you to understanding it better and STOP your ridiculous strawman accusations (introducing additional physical realms and entities).
Since you are the one who uses iron age action figures(Jesus) in your sentences and rejects to listen and accept a well explained definition...guess who is the superstitious one in this conversation. One thing is sure, its not me.

I think this is getting exhausting and ridiculous....actually its the most ridiculous conversation I have ever had with an interlocutor who childishly attempts to reject a verified and documented definition by closing his ears and banging his feet, basing his all argument on an ad populum fallacious and with the only goal in mind to save what is left of his ego....Sad

Okay you have a comprehension disability.

Your Scientia video states that universe and cosmos are PHYSICALLY THE SAME.

Your Brian Green pdf starts with stating that he's using the NEW meaning of the universe. NOT THE OLD ONE, where universe = all there is, but the new one where universe is contrasted with multiverse. The multiverse is a HYPOTHESIS and yes here cosmos = multiverse.

Get back to me when your brain has processed the above. Universe and cosmos describe the same thing, just maybe differently. The nature/scale of the explanation may be different. NOT the nature/scale of what is being explained. I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

Ok now you are either just straight out dishonest or you are under 10 years of age or you some how think that I reject that common usage of the word.
First of all I am the one who told you AGAIN AND AGAIN (as an answer to your strawman accusation) that both terms address the same physical domain! NO NEW REALM NEEDED. I also pointed out SO MANY TIMES that ...the Cosmos is a label for our theoretical "substrate" created by the sum of our hypotheses on the phenomena we currently can not link to the physical structure of our Universe. So I strike out the their "or"

Scientia presents BOTH usages of the words, but you, one more time, felt like cherry picking as if a fallacious tactic will ever help you with your sophistry.
So Here is a timeline that exposes your dishonesty (or lazyness to watch a 3 min video)so that hopefully will make you stop tap dancing.
0:38 "If you use measurements and observation to describe it: You are describing the universe
0:42 If you're using opinion and philosophy to describe it: You 're describing the cosmos.
0:56 So cosmologists uses theories to explain the cosmos While an astronomer uses measurements and observations to explain the universe.

ITs over Alta.....try your shenanigans in the Theology and Mythology forums. When you feel ready to have an honest conversation and open to educate your self on things you currently ignore, pls give pm us. Now you will need to strike the first two "either and or" your self by acting like an adult in this forum and stop your making up arguments on fallacious grounds.(straw manning, cherry picking etc).

[Atla]

Ok now you are either just straight out dishonest or you are under 10 years of age or you some how think that I reject that common usage of the word.
First of all I am the one who told you AGAIN AND AGAIN (as an answer to your strawman accusation) that both terms address the same physical domain! NO NEW REALM NEEDED. I also pointed out SO MANY TIMES that ...the Cosmos is a label for our theoretical "substrate" created by the sum of our hypotheses on the phenomena we currently can not link to the physical structure of our Universe. So I strike out the their "or"

Scientia presents BOTH usages of the words, but you, one more time, felt like cherry picking as if a fallacious tactic will ever help you with your sophistry.
So Here is a timeline that exposes your dishonesty (or lazyness to watch a 3 min video)so that hopefully will make you stop tap dancing.
0:38 "If you use measurements and observation to describe it: You are describing the universe
0:42 If you're using opinion and philosophy to describe it: You 're describing the cosmos.
0:56 So cosmologists uses theories to explain the cosmos While an astronomer uses measurements and observations to explain the universe.

ITs over Alta.....try your shenanigans in the Theology and Mythology forums. When you feel ready to have an honest conversation and open to educate your self on things you currently ignore, pls give pm us. Now you will need to strike the first two "either and or" your self by acting like an adult in this forum and stop your making up arguments on fallacious grounds.(straw manning, cherry picking etc).

The dictionaries and your link claims that cosmos addresses the physical structure of the universe, period. For example Scientia pesented one usage, and then went into detail, there was no second usage presented, the sophistry was yours.

On the other hand, you claim

Cosmos is a label for our theoretical "substrate" created by the sum of our hypotheses on the phenomena we currently can not link to the physical structure of our Universe.

This is your private language. Taken literally, it can be seen as adding additional realms, because those phenomena are the physical structure of the universe. (Yes there's definitely a child with an ego problem here, I'll give you that much.)

[evolution]

Physics: it is irrational to assume those popping Bosons can be explained by the energetic profile of our observable universe, as we currently understand it

Metaphysics: it is irrational to assume those popping Bosons being part of the energetic profile of our universe

There are like three differences between the two statements.

I'd say the italic part in the second statement is pure ontology. It doesn't reference measurement, observation or knowledge/understanding of what is observed. It's about what is/isn't the case. The first contains epistemology.

It seems to me that there isn't universal agreement in philosophy as to precisely what metaphysics is. But it seems to be broadly agreed that it is something like an abstraction layer away from physics, and as such it represents constants/universals. Some would argue that the laws of physics themselves, being abstractions, and being proposed unchanging universals, could be regarded as metaphysical. It's tempting to understand its meaning by reference to other "meta-" prefixed words, like "metadata". But of course "metaphysics" predates words like that and there's a danger of falling into a sort of etymological literalism in doing that, and forgetting that etymologically similar terms are often coined by analogy, and analogies, by their nature, are not identities.

For example:

Physics: if you drop a ball, it falls to the ground.

Metaphysics 1: it does so because of gravity, all objects attract each other
Metaphysics 2: it does so because invisible angels grab the ball and drag it to the ground
Metaphysics 3: it does so because it longs to return to the Earth
etc. there are always an infinite amount of metaphysics.

Here the first narrative is pretty widely accepted, there isn't much reason to look for anything else.

Although the first narrative might be pretty widely accepted, and relatively true only to the narrowed and short sighted view of, and from, the relatively very minuscule and insignificant human being perspective, that narrative is actually completely and utterly Wrong and False, relative to thee actual Truth of 'things'.

As can be proven absolutely True.

But when it comes to things like the BB and quantum fluctuations and the imbalance of energy etc., there is much reason indeed to consider various alternatives.

[NickGaspar]

Timeline from Scientia's Video
0:38 "If you use measurements and observation to describe it: You are describing the universe
0:42 If you're using opinion and philosophy to describe it: You 're describing the cosmos.
0:56 So cosmologists uses theories to explain the cosmos While an astronomer uses measurements and observations to explain the universe.

.....I rest my case.
You are embarrassing your self sir.