User talk:Edomite

Is there some difference between Eternalism as described in your new article Eternalist and eternalism as described in eternalism (philosophy of time)? If not, I think your material should get merged into eternalism (philosophy of time). Michael Hardy 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted, because this looked like original research. It is now a redirect page again.  If you can cite published references, you can reinstate the article and include those. Michael Hardy 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Response
There is a significant difference. For one you can not be an eternalism. You are describing a philosophy, and a hard science. Not a student, or follower of that philosophy. Now as far as merging into Eternalism.I think is a good possibility. I am not certain, how to insert an emotional state into one which is trying to describe a hard science.

As far as published references. Out of all the research I have done on the subject. Much is mentioned on it; However, never have I seen it labeled on its on. Only when tied into different religious belief’s. You can still be an Eternalist on its own, without having to be associated with any one particular branch of religion.

If you can find any title anywhere of anyone who follows just eternalism. I would be happy to review it. :-)

Merging may be a good option though.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edomite"

Reviewed the Original research Clause
It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.


 * It looks like it does count as original research. I will attempt to find any reference possible. I just find it difficult to believe. A subject that has been with us since the beginning has no title for one who studies it as a philosophy.