i will now settle all your problems

In the state described, the water is evaporating hence the glass is in the process of emptying.

Not necessarily a true statement...what if the humidity is high in the atmosphere surrounding the glass, and the temperature of the glass is below that of the water at a point where the evaporation and condensation cancel each other and cause a net gain of zero? At that point, does the glass simply cease to exist?

well, in that case you would trace the glass's history back to the most recent event of mass change in the water, and name it accordingly.

creationists:

what if the glass was created that way by God?

big-bang theorists:

first, you're wrong, but that's not the debate...what if the glass came that way out of the big bang, and that is the time in question?

glasses are made by men, not created by god or poofed up during the big bang...

sheesh.

are you telling me that it is 100% impossible that in an INFINITE universe, there is no glass that was not made by mankind?

Hmph!!!

suppose y expresses the relative amount of water in said glass...

at what level we define y as 'half' [which is just an enumeration, btw], it is still independant of dy/dt... so whether we are filling it or emptying it makes no consequence...

oh, in y'know, in fact don't make the distinction between creationists and big bang theorists... any cosmological argument such in fact is in support of God's existance... causality has to have started by the uncaused... [even tho causality is a priori analytic prop... right?]

God falls on Occams Razor when it comes to the universe's beginning, but that is another thread entirely.

hmm... solve all my problems, eh?

pay off my debts! now!

Ockam's nominalism and Pyhrro's scepticism are no reason to deny God. That methodology was used correctly as a _tool_ in Cartesian ideology. But tell me, how does God's role in Cosmology fall under Ockam specifically, Aran?

At the risk of starting another one of "those" debates...

>>Ockam's nominalism and Pyhrro's scepticism are no reason to deny God.

Yes they are. Quite sufficient reason, and I wonder what makes you say otherwise?

>>God's role in Cosmology

... Eh?

well, aran said...

>God falls on Occams Razor when it comes to the universe's beginning, <

so, in terms of the beginning of the universe... what does Ockam propose against God's role?

and mind going into detail l@d? i would like to know...

oh, and worry not, we wield mod sticks, remember? it's a okay. in fact, if the case be i'll see you in the mod board! [well keep it here, we'll see what happens, and i want aran to own up so i can see what he means...]

Well, as you're asking Aran, I'll be polite and not butt in... for now. Its time for me to sleep anyway. I'm hoping I dont come back tomorrow to a 12 page thread I've seen all of before I even read it.

yeah... so okay everyone, don't reply!!! [unless you are aran]... er... me needa sleepy sleep too... bye bye!