Thanks for post. Since nothing does not exist, my post is of a something world. Kant and Berkeley fought a material world. My immaterial space should not be associated with their world.

In my view, immaterial space is the precursor to actual space; it became actual space. Immaterial space is natural, has nothing to do with the supernatural. I can launch argument in support of immaterial space such as the material could not create itself and must have been created by the immaterial since that is all left. I have stronger arguments.

Very good questions. We are accustomed to objects, material things. I am unable to perceive the immaterial; I wonder if it does exist. If it does, it makes the universe better. My view is that becoming actual from potential, the potential energy now actual became the big bang. I can understand your reluctance to accept this view posted by me. My most serious question is this: DOES THE IMMATERIAL EXIST? The whole post depends on the answer to that question.

On nothing. To me it so simple. Nothing is a concept with no existence; nothing does not exist. One should not put much stock in non-existence.

Was there a singularity? Science is not able to proceed beyond the big bang

It is not physical space as presented by general relativity or it is space that is not made of anything material. Good question. It is my view the that first uncaused cause was immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual; it was potential.

..."humans consider impossible?" I think that is a good response. I suggested that you read my post on The Origin of the Universe. In that post I present a natural argument for the existence of the universe while not arguing against the existence of God. I think that agnosticism is the correct position.

Thanks for comments. Read my post on the origin of the universe carefully and it should be clear that the first existent must be uncaused. It is impossible that the universe exists without a first uncaused cause. How can QM start the universe if the principle from nothing comes nothing is valid?

The first uncaused cause was immaterial space. After that, every effect has a cause or causes. As for Hume, empirical issues can be highly probable, tantamount to certainty. For example: All men die, Socrates is a man, he will die. This is only probable because the major premise is bases on an induction. Kant praises Hume, but I was never a fan. Of course a cause need not repeat itself.

One can expect the present to contnue.

Reality is where I strive to reside. I'm pleased that you think I have returned

The past existed during the present; only a record of it exists now. The future does not exist; it is expected to become the present. Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist.

Eterrnal! That's another word with no existence.

If you want to know how the universe came to be, check my post on its origin

Motion is the fundamental process. There is no past or future, only now. We remember events and record them.

Necessary in the sense that nothing cannot exist--nothing does not exist; therefore, something must exist.

Thanks for the post and your understanding.

I did not dismiss Kant--just have other views which are debatable. My little post even uses Kant's requirements for the transcendental. I avoided Kant by starting from "why is there something" and proceeded to the frist existent.

It was not my aim to prove the existence of God. My view is that there might be a God, there might not be a God. I'm committed to reason as weak as mine is.

Yes, working backwards seems to be the way to proceed. I avoided Kant's too little and to big antinomy explanation,

I started from no universe, then proceeded to first existent. Then I saw a relationship between current space and what might be the first existent, immaterial space. Realizing that mass could not create itself, then it must have been created by the first existent.

Make was a poor choice of words.

I think that one simple paragraph is more than plausible

Kant is my favorite philosopher, but he espoused idealism which is on the decline if not dead. He wanted to defeat the scholastics, protect religion from materialism, minimize Rome and protect his position. This idealism of Berkeley and Kant overestimates human's contribution to reality; we don't make reality as Kant and Berkeley did: perception is essence; perception creates space. Appearances appear, but they are not appearances. I'm a Star Trek fan, so I will leave it at that.

Kant's antinomies were flawed because they involved time--time does not exist. Again, Kant erred on space; he made it perceptual. If you read my post on the origin of the universe, it eludes Kant's antinomies.

If you had read my post on the origin of the universe you would know that my first existent is IMMATERIAL SPACE.

My goal was to show my view of the origin of the universe (read my post on the origin of the universe), I think that the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, and I'm commited to reason, not faith; however, I understand and sympathize with those who are.

Thanks for post. I read Thomas Aquinas when I was young; I liked his quotes of Aristotle, the master of them that know, but I think I owe more to Kant.

The trouble with sicence is its philosophy of materialism and that keeps one's imagination in this universe. Using the philosophy of science, I can proove that God does not exist: all that exist is the material, but god is not material; therefore, god does not exist.

A good question for which I do not have the answer except for my post on the origin of the universe.

More Kantian

I never eat sushi, but I do not dislike sushi. I have spent numerous hours thinking about the post and I have borrowed from others--Aristotle, Kant, etc. If one thinks about the post, it appears more than plausible.

You are the only person to reply who understands the post. Thanks for your comment.

Additionally, I think the philosophy of sience is a verision of materialism; God is not material. Science can prove the non-existence of God as follows: All that exists is the material, but God is not material; therefore, God does not exist. All one has to assert is that God is immaterial.

Science was struggling for any answers prior to the big bang. Now, science
or some scientist says correctly that space preceded the big bang. Science can never arrive at the question of God; it is beyond the paradigm.

I watched Carl Sagan before his demise.

I really should watch some of those videos, time permitting.

In my view eternal is another concept, like, nothing, that has no existence.

Motion is the fundamental process. A baby moves to a teenager--continuous movement. There is no past or future, only the moment. Mozart is recorded in our memory and elsewhere.

Thanks for the video; I enjoyed it. "the fate of the Universe is to become nothing". Not to become nothing, but not to exist. Nothing does not exist. If one searches for nothing, what will be found--nothing. Do not search for non-existents: time, nothing, infinity.