If so-called 'Nothing' has a capability to make something, then one didn't really have the claimed 'Nothing' in the first place, for capability is a something. — PoeticUniverse

I agree.

I don't know what "insuperable immersion in being" means. — Ciceronianus

It's saying that as long as you're Ciceronianus, you can't step outside of being Ciceronianus.

...I think the only meaningful question is "why does the universe exist?" — Ciceronianus

What're your thoughts on this question?

...a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking. — AmadeusD

Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin? — ucarr

This has nothing to do with what I've said. — AmadeusD

I think an eternal universe has no opening. What do you think?

The Goddess implores the visitor to not try to say what is not sayable. She also observes that many do. — Paine

I'm of two minds on this one: a) If the not sayable exists, then of course one should not waste time in the folly of blathering on; b) As Robert Browning says, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?" Staying shut up violates human nature. It's natural that most theoreticians get laughed out of genteel company. Conservatism has its value. When, however, a Newton or an Einstein comes along, then the world, once apace with the new thinking, blathers on in raptures about the sublimities of genius. And thus a new conservative genteel who contemn the present day theoreticians carries on.

The emphasis I put on conditions is to note that making 'what is not being' an object of thought is to ignore that we can only compare alternatives between beings. Hypothesizing the existence of a 'non-being' would be a division of being. It is this division that Parmenides objects to. — Paine

I agree with this.

Not in the sense the word is used today. The Goddess does not permit utterance to be separated from thinking. The whole issue of whether universals have an existence beyond a grouping of particulars, as nominalists deny, requires division Parmenides says are strictly the business of mortality. — Paine

I think I agree with this.

Define ToE: The Totality of Existence. If naturalism is true then ToE={the universe}; if deism is true then ToE={universe+God}

In either case (ToE) was not preceded by a "state of nothingness", for the reason I just mentioned: it is logically impossible for a "state of nothingness" to precede that which exists.

So, feel free to assume a God exists - but don't fool yourself into believing you can prove it to be the case. — Relativist

This is a good argument and I've no quarrel with it.

I don't posit God existing in solitude prior to the universe. I agree there's no something from nothing.

My conjecture of interest to me says, "An infinite series with neither beginning nor ending has neither start point nor end point but, instead, there's a continuous now that progresses as an infinite series bi-directionally toward start point and end point without arrival at either pole. Whether one moves backwards or forwards in time, one is always in the now." The language makes it easy for us to say it as, "As I move in either direction, it's always now that I'm moving."

Why is this an open universe? My gut tells me a bilateral infinite series towards both poles doesn't accommodate discrete boundaries. What sort of boundaries contains the now? Time is the universal solvent that keeps us in the now. What ever stops time?

Tomorrow, I will focus on irrationality in the sense of an irrational number like pi, which is non-ending, non-repeating and can't be expressed as a ratio. I want us to examine some details of pi's irrationality in application to:

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions.. — 180 Proof

Hence if you have a question like "How can you square the circle?" you already have the idea that there's the algorithm to do this just to be found. And then you can just hope for a pertinent solution to appear from some great math genius in the future, because you aren't at all willing to give away your false premiss. And likely you aren't open in your mind to conclusions saying that it cannot be done. — ssu

Your example, like calculus, doesn't finalize the comprehension of the infinite series. The approximation forever stands "as if." To the extent your imagining a perfect circle is tied to the calculation of a circle using delta-epsilon approaches to limits with finite numbers - how else can you conceptualize a perfect circle beyond imagining the incalculable transcendence of an infinite-sided polygon - you're only imagining the "as if" rendition of a perfect circle. This leads to the strange conclusion no one have ever seen a circle. What we see is a polygon which, in abstraction, we count as a circle. In short, no one has seen nor calculated infinity. (Even the theists acknowledge Moses didn't actually see God.)

Asking why something happens cannot operate in the infinitely determined or infinitely undetermined. — Paine

This sentence is a performative contradiction. You use explanation to make a declaration about the prohibition of explanation.

Whether it's an infinite regress of causes, postulated first causes, or a realm of pure chance, the way to the answer to why-being is endless.

Thinking and the object of thought are the same. For you will not find thought apart from being, nor either of them apart from utterance. Indeed, there is not any at all apart from being, because Fate has bound it together so as to be whole and unmovable. Accordingly, all the usual notions that mortals accept and rely on as if true---coming-to-be and perishing, being and not-being, change of place and variegated shades of color---these are nothing more than names. — Parmenides, 8: 34-41, Wheelwright Edition

Assuming thought only accessible through language of some type, I ask, "Was Parmenides a nominalist?"

Why not nothing? = Why being? Asking either question assumes being, so [why-] being is inscrutable by questioning. — ucarr

To ask the question of why anything exists requires a questioner, yes. But so what? — Mijin

That because we ask the question, "Why not nothing?" there is not nothing means the question creates a tautology we can't escape. The insuperability of our being-ness tautology suggests why-being is the limit of our inquiry methodology. In the context of Philosophy, specifically ontology, this is not a trivial matter. Nominalism denies general being, but that denial merely shifts the tautology to individual beings.

We also need a questioner to ask what dark matter is made of...does that observation solve the question of what dark matter is? Does it entail that a universe without dark matter is impossible?

Likewise the fact that sentience is a prerequisite for asking why anything exists, does not in any way answer the question. And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible. — Mijin

Do your examples highlight the special status of the why-being question? A questioner can separate himself from physics; he can't separate himself from himself are per existence in pursuit of its why-being.

And it doesn't tell us that nothingness is impossible. — Mijin

The tautology of the why-being inquiry, held at bay in non-self-referential inquiries, allows a fighting chance the questioner might arrive at the why-answers to physics. Step outside of physics and you step into the supernaturalism of theism. In the context of supernaturalism, perhaps things are created from nothing. At our level of physics while in the flesh, the inaccessibility of nothingness is a problem of perspective emergent from our state of being necessarily within existence.

Does supernaturalism allow the super-positioning of not being and being? As a natural person, it's hard for me to picture the transition point between nothing and something in the creation of something from nothing. How could such a transition point occur given the fact that such a transition is centered in somethingness? Is there a logical escape from the somethingness that is the phenomenon of creating somethingness from nothingness? If the agent creating something from nothing exists necessarily, how can the presence of this somethingness have contact with nothingness? Any presence of somethingness obliterates nothingness.

That's a positive spin on it, but the logic in mathematics is a staunch judge that doesn't give leeway falsehoods. Questions with false premises won't likely by accident give you something useful. — ssu

What you say is true within the constraining context of statistics. Statistical random sampling methods and their margins of error accommodate chance deviations from facts guiding design of methodologies toward goals. I will guess that many scientists are prone to tamping down their margin of error calculations for the sake of making experimental results look more acceptable.

Random sampling margins of error in application to premises can sometimes be the engine driving science forward:

Hence if you have a question like "How can you square the circle?" you already have the idea that there's the algorithm to do this. And then you can just hope for a pertinent solution to appear from some great math genius in the future, because you aren't at all willing to give away your false premiss. And likely you aren't open in your mind to conclusions saying that it cannot be done. — ssu

This is an apt portrait of the theoretician. Can we suppose someone said to Newton, "Can you square the circle?" Newton (and Leibniz) respond with their calculus calculating the integral sum of the area under a curve with an infinite series of infinitesimal rectangles.

As you say, questions with currently false premises can be stored in the collective memory as functions with future applications.

System := Components (things that are) and the interaction between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence — Pieter R van Wyk

My only contribution is that there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System - it is a very unique thing in the Universal Collection of Components. We cannot object if this unique interaction or this unique component is named God or any other name... — Pieter R van Wyk

So, this Venn diagram that you are speaking of, does it contain such a group of parts? Then, is the purpose also in this Venn diagram or not? — Pieter R van Wyk

Given system as you define it above, consider that it's the totality of parts acting in harmony towards a purpose. Now, suppose that only some of the parts act in harmony towards a secondary purpose that supports the main purpose. Under this construction, the totality of parts forms the superset, and the less-than-total number of parts forms a subset of the superset.

As you know, the superset and the subset share parts, but the superset has additional parts not contained in the subset. The Venn diagram, as you also know, presents a visual representation of the interaction of the two sets. This interaction has the subset circle lying entirely within the larger superset circle. At a glance, this visual tells us that the two sets share common parts.

As you know, the subset shares some of the parts and therefore some of the purpose of the superset. As you know, common language says that the purpose of the subset is a sub-routine that performs a specific task essential to the main purpose of the system as a whole (superset).

My purpose in our dialogue is to examine whether or not your statement above in bold italics expresses a contradiction. The appearance of a contradiction arises from you saying the unique component interacts with the the universal system and also saying the unique component is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System.

If one set interacts with another set, as in the superset_subset relationship, then it's a contradiction to also say that same set is not a component of the other set. The premise supporting my suspicion of a contradiction is the Venn diagram. The Venn diagram illustrates the common set that is the intersection of the subset and its superset. In keeping with this configuration, your description: there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System. describes a unique component that is part of a common set while at the same time not a part of a common set.

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

If X#÷^@WVH isn't gibberish, then please tell me what it says. I see the conjunction operator, but the terms on either side of it are unknown to me.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist? — Ciceronianus

Are we compelled to say, "Nothing isn't an option." because our perspective is constrained by our insuperable immersion within being? The problem of perspective lies at the heart of my OP.

This seems to me to be a question which science may answer someday, if the question addresses how the universe came to be. — Ciceronianus

The problem of perspective includes the problem with asking, "How did the universe come to be?" This question sets up a linear timeline with a beginning of the universe. Because of the comprehension restriction problem, I have doubts about our understanding of the boundary of the universe. Some folks will hasten to say the universe has no center and no boundary.

Topology shows some promise of taking us beyond simple beginnings and endings.

Heraclitus said that eternity stretches backward and forward. That pretty much frees up any need to explain why anything exists. — Paine

Terse and very much to the point. Thanks for posting this.

Causality needs the prospect of stuff not happening to get started. — Paine

I'm inclined to think stuff is its own source of causality because causality involves symmetry and conservation. The symmetry of stuff mirrors out there, and then interaction with other symmetries causes emergence and the resulting ecology looks like a universe of variety. It's really just a lot of conserved transformations though.

Nietzsche pointed out that if eternal recurrence is the case, everything that can happen already has done that. — Paine

I hope there's no eternal recurrence; a closed-loop reality is unappealing.

What you say about the modus ponens chain of reasoning is correct.

As for the timeline of our universe, what do you make of a timeline bidirectionally irrational? There’s no Zeno progression from a beginning-to-now paradox because there’s no beginning. Also, there’s no collapse to nothing that invokes the paradox of something collapsing to nothing while something collapsing to nothing is a something because there’s no collapse to nothing.

I admit that I’m indulging in far-fetching speculation by conjecturing about a bi-directional infinite series timeline that’s an eternal now based on the algebraic geometry of topology.

What do you think?

Isomorphically, the world shares the same logical form as our thoughts and language. That explains why the world makes sense to us. — Richard B

This is helpful info. It bolsters my inclination to believe our sensory input is not entirely self-enclosed.

a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking. — AmadeusD

Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin?

This supposed 'Nothing' cannot be. This mistaken 'it' has no it and so it cannot even be meant; therefore existence must be, for it has no alternative, and indeed there is something; so no option. — PoeticUniverse

All of this arises from your insuperable immersion in existence. Your argument boils down to saying, "Existence must be because it is." The problem, a problem of perspective, consists in the fact we observe existence from a position the makes not-existence unreachable.

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? — ucarr

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions.. — 180 Proof

Okay. Demonstrable fictions stand some distance away from gibberish. Demonstrable fictions have premises that can be true or false.

I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it?

Incoherences and falsities. — 180 Proof

Okay. As I take incoherences to be instances of invalidity, I see this list as your acknowledgement theistic narratives contain logical errors in the form of invalidity, as well as other types of logical errors.

Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises. — ucarr

It only requires showing that theistic truth-claims lack sufficient truth-makers. — 180 Proof

Okay. Your work includes exposing truth-claims unsupported by facts. Usually, a truth claim holds a premise embedded within.

Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?

No. Why do you ask? — 180 Proof

Let me quote you:

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

Thus, the world is the totality of facts, not of things. So what are these things/objects? They are metaphysical presuppositions assumed in order to show how we come to understand the world around us. — Richard B

Do you believe facts, which are narratives, lie trapped within language? Given such a situation, how can you think we can know and understand the world around us?

Is this chain of reasoning valid? — ucarr

Back at the beginning, you presumed that there was someone asking a question. So it's no surprise that you can conclude that someone exists. — Banno

Yes, I presumed someone was asking the question, "Why is there not nothing?" This question, asked a long time ago, is the impetus for my OP. I'm not alone in doing that around here. It's one of the important reasons we come around here, isn't it?

Asking a question presumes the questioner. Sure. — Banno

Presuming the advanced sentience required by inquiry is no trivial matter. Do you demur?

That's not demonstrating that something exists, so much as presuming it. — Banno

What you say is true, however, the focus of my argument rests upon the implication that questioning something precludes the nothing that wants to be investigated. The upshot of this, also not trivial, says that existence is insuperable to the questioner. This is what I think gives the question of general existence special status. The questioner cannot examine general existence without presuming his own existence unexamined as he cannot get outside of himself and within himself his self-examination is ultimately tautological.

Which one must do, anyway. That there is stuff is still no more than a brute fact. — Banno

The brute fact of existence lies at the heart of my argument: existence, being insuperable, presents as the limit of inquiry. Why do you consider this premise nothing more than mundane observation?

There are moments when I find "something" disappointing, I'll admit. This is one of them. — Ciceronianus

You can help me by elaborating some of the details of your mathematical and logical disappointments experienced while reading my OP. As you may have seen with Tom Storm, he supplies helpful details that clarify his dislikes. These details help me see more clearly where I can work towards improvement.

God will not be completely understood. — ucarr

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. — 180 Proof

When you propound your anti-theism, are you wont to say theistic texts are gibberish? I've heard your claim theism is empty. Voiding the claims of theism seeks to expose its logical errors, doesn't it? Establishing the falsehood of a narrative requires a discernible meaning with a supporting argument with underlying premises. Are you now saying theism, instead of being invalid, presents as unintelligible nonsense?

I’d say that’s an exaggeration of my position, and the wording you’ve used is full of judgments I wouldn’t normally make. I wasn’t referring to “pettifogging trivial details.” Also, expressions like “roll of the dice” or “you’re a gambler” don’t fit — I’m not a risk-taker by inclination. I do sometimes wing things, yes, but that’s different. I’d also be unlikely to use terms like “folly” or “pretentious fools.” Are these word choices AI? — Tom Storm

No AI text posted by me.

If I had to sum up the paragraph of mine you sited I would describe it like this: I’m skeptical of grand narratives and the tendency to claim certainty or authority in areas where we lack real expertise. When I say I am a fan of uncertainty, I refer to being content to say, "I don't know". — Tom Storm

Expertise and its authority are hard won over years of dedicated work entailing sacrifices. Yes, the experts deserve my respectful silence and deference to their judgments and opinions.

Questions define our answers... I think it really it is our questions in the first place that are wrong. — ssu

I'll go along with saying, "Questions constrain our answers." Let's suppose each question specifies a field providing a limited context which the answer inhabits. Might we then proceed to speculate about a question being a function that takes given A as input and then outputs it as B, a permutation or transformation of A that yields new information?

Under this scheme, a wrong question is a function that proposes to transport given A into a field impertinent to A. Against my better judgment, I want to defend wrong questions as spurs to serendipity. The wrong question benefits not given A, however, it transforms given A' into a pot of gold. If there's any truth to this conjecture, then perhaps serendipity is not really random.

I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise. — Tom Storm

Regarding the above, please show me where I'm mis-reading you. — ucarr

You've taken my simple point and jazzed it up and perhaps provided motivations I don't hold. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure the points you make are simple. You say I've jazzed up what you've communicated. By that do you mean I've exaggerated the range and scope of your points? What motives have I falsely ascribed to you?

My takeaway from your statement goes as follows: a) your experience of the world, being down to earth, shuns pettifogging trivial details; b) being a fan of uncertainty, you like to roll the dice; you're a gambler; c) you like to keep things simple as much as possible (does c conflict with b?); d) you think over-analysis of things is a folly in abundance here; e) you give a wide berth to pretentious fools who would be wise men.

Let's review our conversation: you understand the universal system has a unique purpose. That's your statement about system, and my understanding of system, by this definition, is similar.

The Venn diagram is a separate thing. Let me suggest that you enter Venn diagram into your Google AI search engine. It'll give you a good definition.

You say the universal system has a unique purpose. My definition is similar: a group of parts that work together to achieve a purpose, like the parts of a car working together to provide transportation.

The value of religion is not rooted in the scientifically arrived at truth values of its claims. — Hanover

You seem to be saying that the value of religion is distinct from evidence, facts, logic, experimental verification and behavioral norms.

...if evolutionary theory leaves me in a state of despair by relegating me to the level of ordinary animal and its rejection offers me greater meaning in my life, I am rational to reject it. — Hanover

Let's suppose you practice some type of faith-based science that elevates spiritual healing over vaccines. Taking vaccines in your view lowers you to an unprivileged status within the animal kingdom. Shunning vaccines protects you against catastrophic loss of self-esteem, however, rejecting the pneumococcal vaccine during an outbreak in your habitat threatens you with death. This situation is a dilemma because either choice is bad. Why do you think prioritizing belief over science in this situation is rational?

...the rationality of theism, like any behavior, is judged by the objectives it achieves. If your highest objective is to live your life according to the implications of science, even if that should mean accepting a certain level of meaninglessness foreign to a theist, then do that. It's not irrational to do otherwise though. — Hanover

In the above, are you articulating a type of pragmatism?

The value of religion is not rooted in the scientifically arrived at truth values of its claims. — Hanover

If you are linking religious value with practical results, is it not necessary for you to embrace truth value propositions pertinent to achieving goals systematically by rational means?

As I read you, the rest of the system is a subset of the universal system. — ucarr

Please enlighten me; what is the common properties linking the Purpose of the Universal System with the rest of this system. — Pieter R van Wyk

When I read this, I got the impression that by "Universal System" you meant the super-system and that by "the rest of the system" you meant one or more sub-systems.

I am afraid you have read me wrong. — Pieter R van Wyk

There are no sets or subsets in this... — Pieter R van Wyk

Although, I haven't read How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence, I will answer as follows. A familiar example of a system that possesses sub-systems is an automobile. The automobile is the super-system, and its function is to provide transportation. One of its sub-systems is its electrical system. The battery supplies current to the ignition-lock assembly that powers the electric motor that makes the ignition of the combustion engine possible. The super-system can't operate without the operation of an essential sub-system such as the electrical system.

If you're describing a system which has no sub-systems, then we have no argument as there are systems which have no sub-systems.

There are no sets or subsets in this - it is impossible to define a system in terms of sets or subsets - it is a fundamental thing by and in itself. — Pieter R van Wyk

I disagree with this generalization as per my statements above.

I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise. — Tom Storm

(Dialoguing with 180 Proof) I understand you to be implying that Tom Storm's quote, with respect to: a) self-referential higher orders entertains a belief that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions; b) constraints with outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable are to be preferred to hard determinism; c) higher orders of things should be shunned in favor of minimalism whenever logically possible; d) given an apparent lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise, overthinking should be constrained. — ucarr

Regarding the above, please show me where I'm mis-reading you.

As I read you, the rest of the system is a subset of the universal system. If so, then given that the universal system has members a, b, and c, let’s say the subset has member c. Member c is what the two sets have in common. Member c is the Venn diagram where the two sets intersect. A real world example is the city of Dublin within the nation of Ireland. Within Dublin you’re also within in Ireland.

The best argument I can think of against theism is that God clearly cares about some people, but doesn't care about others. — baker

I take this to be your way of saying that God has unjustifiable biases in favor of certain preferred populations. I offer no defense of this apologist rationalizing.

My recourse to irrationality for the defense of theism arises from some of my thinking about ZFC and its comprehension restriction.

Inside of a Venn Diagram, by definition, lie the common properties linking two otherwise distinct things. An example would be two math inequalities that share a zone wherein their points intersect.

You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely [in] spite of deterministic events that control your life? — ucarr

..."free will" (free action) is not un-conditional much as chaotic systems as such (e.g. weather, radioactive decay, disease vectors) are not in-deterministic. — 180 Proof

I understand you to be telling me that: a) our ecology, with its involuntary processes structured by invariant regularities and constants leads to: b) the compatibilist believing his choices are constrained to outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable.

I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise. — Tom Storm

I understand you to be implying that Tom Storm's quote, with respect to: a) self-referential higher orders entertains a belief that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions; b) constraints with outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable are to be preferred to hard determinism; c) higher orders of things should be shunned in favor of minimalism whenever logically possible; d) given an apparent lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise, overthinking should be constrained.

Since you argue for human determinism ... — ucarr

No I don't. I'm a compatibilist. — 180 Proof

You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely is spite of deterministic events that control your life?

Do you see that your free will maintains its independence in spite of common ground wherein impersonal causation and personal choice intersect?

To illustrate the object of the question, let's imagine the common ground as being like the field where the x and y axes intersect. The x-axis represents the domain, which is the set of all possible input values (independent variable) for a function. The y-axis represents the range, which is the set of all possible output values (dependent variable) that the function can produce.

The input of an independent causal event (It's raining.) determines your response output of a chosen behavior (I walk outdoors under my umbrella.). The function is your reasoning mind which decides the umbrella response is best. There's a causal relationship between the rain and your choice of an umbrella, but you could've chosen to walk in the rain without an umbrella, so your choice of an umbrella was free. Your walk in the rain under your umbrella is the intersection (common ground) where input and output intersect.

Not at all. Unconscious-deterministic speculations e.g. Spinoza's substance, Epicurus' atomic void, Laozi's dao, etc — 180 Proof

Since you argue for human determinism, do you also argue for cosmic determinism? If so, why isn't cosmic determinism, i.e., a deterministic God, just a valid scaled up human determinism? Yes, this would allow for a God who prefers atheism by programming, thus suggesting a yin-yang relationship between the two isms.

How do you explain deterministic atheism being valid whereas deterministic theism is invalid? In all cases, no sentient choice is involved.

How do you explain the determinism of your conscious preference for atheism as against the determinism of your theism? If all of this is determined, you're merely an atheist by impersonal programming, and theists likewise. Sans debates by selective sentients, the dialectic is just programming. Differences are trivial.

I expect you to have a wealth of nuanced arguments with hair-splitting distinctions in the denotations of words. Doesn't this spin you back towards a paradoxical claim to possess the power to choose?

If we're allowed programmatically to pivot between the two isms, then we swim in an ocean of uncertainty, determinism notwithstanding. If this is the case, then philosophy, as I've thought, examples another flavor of entertainment.

I'm skeptical about your claim not to understand that the Christian God examples a scale of consciousness greater than your human scale of consciousness. I'm also skeptical about your claim not to understand that your thinking about God's thinking mirrors your thinking about your thinking.

My interpretation of your anti-theism says your reading of theistic narratives has lead you to conclude human type consciousness at cosmic scale has not been logically established. Nowhere in your counter-narratives have I seen compelling logic precluding the mirroring of humanoid consciousness to a grand scale.

Where's the atheistic narrative detailing the transition from randomness to order?

Where's the atheistic narrative detailing the possibility of human consciousness knowing empirically first hand true randomness. Perception and analysis assume a very highly ordered ecology wherein the question of the possibility of instantiating true randomness is unanswered.

Atheism, to preclude cosmic consciousness, must embrace cosmic randomness. Can it uncouple itself from order? How could it do so and maintain its purpose to learn the truth?

Can you express the measure of the number of sides of a circle as an integer? — ucarr

Infinity isn't defined as an integer. — ssu

Indeed, it's not. In the face-off between, say, an infinite series and a discrete interval like, say, all of the odd numbers between one and ten, we've got a high-contrast pairing of infinite and finite.

Rationalism is bounded by finitism. For this reason, infinite values, being incompletely containable, limit mathematicians. — ucarr

And anyway, there is uncomputable math. So mathematics isn't limited to computability/finitism and the like. — ssu

What does it mean for math to be able to ask questions it can't answer? Moreover, especially what does it mean for math to able to ask questions it can't answer regarding infinite values such as Turing's halting question about a computer program knowing when another program will either halt or run on an infinite loop?