Infinity not woo woo!
Come on.

As I said in my earlier post, I'm suspicious of using this explanatory gap as an excuse to believe in some sort of spiritualism.

If you remove the word believe from that sentence and replace it with the word consider the word excuse loses it’s relevance.

As I said in my earlier post, I'm suspicious of using this explanatory gap as an excuse to believe in some sort of spiritualism.
If you remove the word believe from that sentence and replace it with the word consider the word excuse loses it’s relevance. — Punshhh

Why consider any specific spiritual account? I can acknowledge it's possible, but the possibilities are endless, so what's the point?

It's like considering what other forms of life that may exist elsewhere in the the universe, choosing one specific, hypothetical form and then drawing conclusions about the nature of aliens. Indeed, it's possible that there exist Tralfamadorians, who communicate through tap-dancing and farts, but a bare possibility like this has no practical significance to me.

IOW, something more than mere possibility is needed to make it worth giving any serious consideration to.

Why consider any specific spiritual account? I can acknowledge it's possible, but the possibilities are endless, so what's the point?

So are the possibilities for the origin, ground of physical manifestation, the possibilities are endless.

It's like considering what other forms of life that may exist elsewhere in the the universe, choosing one specific, hypothetical form and then drawing conclusions about the nature of aliens. Indeed, it's possible that there exist Tralfamadorians, who communicate through tap-dancing and farts, but a bare possibility like this has no practical significance to me.

Yes and the Flying Spaghetti Monster might have spewed out atoms in the Big Bang. But that’s not my preference either.

IOW, something more than mere possibility is needed to make it worth giving any serious consideration to.

There are two parts to this;
Firstly, it’s unlikely that the human mind with its bias, I mentioned earlier and the limitations suggested by Wayfarer*, would be likely to come up with serious possibilities. We really are blind in this regard.

Secondly, philosophy has already addressed this in Idealism for example. So rational possibilities have been explored there.


Furthermore there are cosmogonies which have stood the test of time. These can be found at the heart of various religions. While their stories vary, parallels can be drawn between them. In these traditions the truth or reality about religion, or existence was shown to people in revelation. This is the only way to go beyond our inherent blindness (mentioned in italics above). This knowledge informs the philosophy of the school. Normally someone considering these alternatives spends years studying the philosophy of and experiencing the practice of one, or more of these schools. Until they develop a body and breadth of knowledge. So they become fluent in the milieu, rather like a philosopher becomes fluent in the milieu of philosophical thought.


* “He is arguing that evolutionary biology may account for how animals adapt and survive, but that this in itself does not provide grounds for us to believe that an argument is true, when, according to those criteria, it might simply be adaptive”.

What makes infinity woo-woo?

What makes infinity woo-woo?

Well it does have a meaning in mathematics, as an endless sequence of numbers, or unbounded set. But this is not encompassing any endless, or infinite quantity, it is only a symbol representing an open ended sequence.
But that’s as far as it goes for rationality. When one tries to apply it to anything else, the logical conclusion becomes illogical. I could give examples, but I think we are all familiar with what that looks like.

Nonsense. "Nothing" necessarily cannot "exist". — 180 Proof

I agree. Using nothing as a concept to denote no thing in the state of existing, creates the existence of "state", which can be no thing or some thing. I'm just using existence as a label (perhaps confusingly) as part of my depictions of concepts about the existence of "things" or not the existence of "things".

My god means to me that I should see myself in everyone, and accept that all I see in others is also inside of me. My god means to me that I should accept responsibility for everything being exactly as it is, as it is a part of me whether I've been active or passive in its creation.

↪180 Proof : If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. — Gnomon
Well, not only doesn't that follow (category error), but all three concepts are mere abstractions; what makes any of them "woo woo nonsense" is attributing causal – physical – properties to any of them like "creator" "mover" ... "programmer". :eyes: — Relativist

180woowoo anachronistically & erroneously confuses my metaphorical programmer G*D, with the religious God of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph & Jesus. Since the Hebrews envisioned their tribal god as a king-like humanoid entity, living above the heavens (Shamayim) imagined as a crystal dome (firmament), yet immanent within the complete world system. {image ⓵} 180 denigrates "mere abstractions" , but some abstractions are more useful than others*1. You may be more open to discussing meta-physical philosophical metaphors than 180 is.

The Judeo-Christian intervening immanent "God" is indeed a different logical & philosophical category from my God of the philosophers : similar to Spinoza's immanent deus sive natura. Except that modern cosmology forces us to deal with the necessity of a transcendent Cause to explain the Big Bang. For example, mathematicians have found the metaphysical transcendent notions of Zero & Infinity useful for their logical explorations. Another logical, but irrational notion is the number PI. It's labeled as "transcendent" because it does not exist on the number line. And it is "irrational" because it cannot be computed as a ratio of other numbers. Does that metaphysical logic sound like "woo woo" to you?

Since secular cosmology has concluded that our world is not self-existent --- as Spinoza assumed --- would you agree that "how & why it came into existence" is a reasonable philosophical question? And any answer we posit will be an unproven conjecture, not a verifiable fact ; an abstract concept, not a material object. The humanoid Hebrew God is indeed a different philosophical category from Zero & Infinity, pure abstract Logical structures. But to me, G*D is also a "mere abstraction", but like Zero a useful concept for inquiring philosophers. Not a tyrant in the sky for us mortals to cower before, but a reasonable answer to the question of world origins.

180's accusation of "attributing causal properties to mere abstractions" missed the point of the Zero & Infinity analogy. As usual, he interprets a metaphor literally. The Causation I "attribute" to the pre-Bang {image ⓶} Source of Cause & Laws (energy & limits) is not a physical property, but merely the burst of Potential that powered the Big Bang from No-Thing to the "endless forms most beautiful"*2 of Darwin's world. Some cosmologists --- ignoring the first & second laws of thermodynamics --- like to imagine that Energy itself is eternal. But only in its timeless Potential state of statistical Probability is causal Energy safe from energy-devouring Entropy.

But even that common scientific term for causal capability is a meta-physical concept of transforming abstract Potential (voltage) into concrete Actual (current). And a cosmological Programmer is one who has the ability to setup a world system with the capability of performing an assigned task, a purpose. Apparently 180 doesn't see any purpose to an evolving world that began with nothing (zero) but Potential (infinity) and has produced inquiring Minds that explore the mystery of Being. :smile:

*1.Yes, the concept of infinity is very useful, particularly in mathematics and physics, despite being an abstract idea. It's used to describe things that are unbounded or limitless, and it helps simplify calculations and model complex phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+infinity+useful

*2. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species"



❶ ANACHRONISTIC WORLDVIEWS


❷ BEFORE THE BANG

Apparently 180 doesn't see any purpose to an evolving world that began with nothing (zero) but Potential (infinity) and has produced inquiring Minds that explore the mystery of Being. — Gnomon

On the contrary, as I've stated in many other posts, the purported BB (@ negative 13.81 billion years) is the earliest moment modern science can measure in the inflationary-entropic development of spacetime and (our) "inquiring Minds" are evolved ephemerae who are atavistically motivated to confabulate various self-comforting, narrative denials of the reality that "inquiring Minds" are only ephemerae (à la Buddha's anicca, Democritus' atomic swirl, Spinoza's finite modes ...)

As far as I can tell, there is no "mystery of being", just a near-universal, stubborn fear of nonbeing; thus, (cosmic/existential) "purpose" begins with resisting the fear (re: E. Becker, PW Zapffe ... Epicurus).

Lastly, 'nothing comes from nothing' (i.e. no-thing includes no "Potential (infinity)") :smirk:

As far as I can tell, there is no "mystery of being", just a near-universal, stubborn fear of nonbeing; thus, (cosmic/existential) "purpose" begins with resisting the fear (re: E. Becker, PW Zapffe ... Epicurus) — 180 Proof

Do you not find it mysterious how non-being eventually turned into being? I think that’s one of the biggest philosophical mysteries there is. A universe that had previously had not contained sentience is able to produce enquiring minds that question their existence and their place in the universe.

From a scientific and technical point of view for the universe to develop life and sentience within it is nothing short of a marvel.

This in my view is highly likely to be because there’s a higher form of sentience which is eternal and it’s no chance or remote probability that we developed sentience within our cosmos without those parameters (i.e. intelligence). I believe that this intelligence preceded our emergence as sentience species and predates us by factor of infinity.

If there was, no such prior being then our emerging sentience would be even more marvellous and mysterious.

Except that modern cosmology forces us to deal with the necessity of a transcendent Cause to explain the Big Bang — Gnomon

No, it doesn't.

Since secular cosmology has concluded that our world is not self-existent --- as Spinoza assumed --- would you agree that "how & why it came into existence" is a reasonable philosophical question? — Gnomon

Cosmology has not concluded our world is dependent on anything. However, cosmologists are working on theory that explains the big bang, in terms of what the prior state was.

Do you not find it mysterious how non-being eventually turned into being? — kindred

No I don't. What are (some) Intelligible grounds to believe that 'nonbeing became being'?

Cosmology has not concluded our world is dependent on anything. — Relativist

:up:

That there are things which "be". That implies non-being and so the question (i.e the question why there is something) is entirely apt. Further, once we see that question is apt (even if unanswerable) we have to do one of two things:
1. Bite the bullet that there has never been 'nothing' (ignoring the blatant contradiction in terms there lol. I didn't invent them!); or
2. Bite the bullet that if there is "something" and "nothing" is implied, we should expect it to obtain (or, the opposite of obtain lol).

This is fully intelligible, and gives us pause as to why there's something. If there is something, when was there nothing? Previously in time is hte only available inference it seems.

I too, find the questions boring, though.

Do you not find it mysterious how non-being eventually turned into being? — kindred

What I find mysterious is that anyone would think that there was a prior state of non-being / nonexistence.

What exists today is a consequence of what existed before. Either there is an infinite series of begettings, or there was an initial state of affairs.

That there are things which "be". That implies non-being and so the question (i.e the question why there is something) is entirely apt. — AmadeusD

I see no such implication. Walk me through it, and do so without treating existence as a property.

If there was an initial state of affairs, there must have been 'something' from which it was initiated.

None of the takes trying to avoid the inference of non-existence actually work.

You replied after the above, to be clear.

It's pretty hard to walk something through something which is inferential.

Something infers nothing. Yes? Yes.
Being infers non-being. Yes? There are things which aren't, outside of the list of things which are. So, Yes.
Now, can we access them? NO! lol. That is probably why people want to make statements such as yours and Banno's. There is nothing to say, other than to observe the inference. The idea that there has "always been" is just as disconcerting (and unsupported, in the sense outlined above) as that "something always was". Even the use of temporal terms infers something other than the claim.

That there are things which "be". That implies non-being — AmadeusD

I've no idea what this means, or what "that" refers to. Besides, "implies" doesn't do the work of causes ...

What exists today is a consequence of what existed before. — Relativist

:up: :up:

If there was an initial state of affairs, there must have been 'something' from which it was initiated. — AmadeusD

Non-sequitur. If it was initiated, then it wasn't the initial state of affairs.

Either there was an initial state of affairs, or there's an infinite series of causes.

None of the takes trying to avoid the inference of non-existence actually work. — AmadeusD

What does this mean? A state of affairs entails existence. A state of affairs consisting of non-existence is a self-contradictory term.

Something infers nothing. Yes? Yes.
Being infers non-being. Yes? There are things which aren't, outside of the list of things which are. So, Yes. — AmadeusD

Only semantically. We can refer to things that are in or out, but existence = what IS, not what isn't. We can talk about the infinitely many hypothetical things that aren't in, but these absences are not ontological.

Now, can we access them? NO! lol. That is probably why people want to make statements such as yours and Banno's. There is nothing to say, other than to observe the inference. [/quotep
The inference is semantic, not ontological. We're discussing ontology- what exists, and what can be inferred to exist. When we say unicorns don't exist, "unicorn" refers only to a concept- a mental object. It doesn't refer to anything ontological (other than the mental object).

The idea that there has "always been" is just as disconcerting (and unsupported, in the sense outlined above) as that "something always was". Even the use of temporal terms infers something other than the claim.

I don't understand what you consider disconcerting. We can entertain possibilities. Either the past is finite, or it is infinite. There's no in-between. Each has implications that we can consider. An infinite past implies an infinite chain of causes. Is that actually possible? Some people think so, but it seems to imply that infinitely many, finite duration. time periods have been traversed. That's impossible. Consider the future: we traverse it one day at a time; evey new day will be a finite number of days from today- there is no point at which infinity is reached. Future infinity just implies an unending process. Contrast this with the past: the past is completed. This implies an infinity of time periods has been completed. This seems impossible, but I'm not arguing I'm right, I'm just highlighting the possibilities and also explaining why I believe the pastvis finite.

Any conception of a finite past implies an initial state. An initial state cannot have been caused, because that would imply a prior cause.

If a God exists, an initial state of affairs could consist of an uncaused God (and nothing else) - who subsequently created the universe. If no gods exist, there would still be an initial state - something with the potential to subsequently develop one or more universes.

Cosmology has not concluded our world is dependent on anything. However, cosmologists are working on theory that explains the big bang, in terms of what the prior state was. — Relativist

You sound confident about the independence of our world from any uncaused First Cause. Do you believe that measurable space-time is a continuum extending beyond the initial conditions*1 of the mathematical model known as the Big Bang? Is that confidence (faith?) based on knowledge or presumption?

Speaking of knowledge, what is the "exact nature" of that prior state, and what is the evidence for it? Is our universe "dependent" on a non-local infinite mathematical concept, which is not a "physical reality"*2? Since the Big Bang Singularity is defined as an infinite point where the "laws of nature break down", how could we follow the methods of Science beyond that point? Do you know of a scientific explanation for the "improbable smoothness" and "low entropy" of the initial state*3? Would you agree that the First Law of Thermodynamics implies that the Bang began with an unexplained input of Energy from that mysterious timeless prior state? Can you accept that the Multiverse conjecture is a myth, not a scientific fact?

Would you agree that Cosmologists like Sean Carroll*3, when faced with speculating into a state where laws of nature break down, are doing Philosophy instead of Science? Have those cosmologists solved the "puzzle" of the hypothetical "prior state" with facts that us amateur philosophers don't know, or are they just guessing, and shooting in the dark? :smile:


*1. Before the Big Bang, the prevailing theory suggests a state of initial singularity, a point of extremely high density and temperature. This singularity is not a physical location, but rather a state where all of space and time as we know them were compressed into an infinitely small point. While the Big Bang theory describes the expansion of the universe from this initial state, the exact nature of what existed "before" remains a subject of ongoing scientific exploration and debate.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+prior+state

*2. The Big Bang singularity is a mathematical concept representing the state of the universe at the very beginning of time, according to general relativity. It's a point of infinite density and temperature where the known laws of physics, as described by general relativity, break down. It's important to understand that this singularity is a feature of the mathematical model, not necessarily a physical reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+singularity+mathematical

*3. The universe materialized literally out of nothing, at a tiny but finite size, and expanded thereafter. There were no moments before the moment of smallest size because there was no “before.” Likewise, there was no “creation” of the universe, since that concept implies action in time. . . .
The improbable smoothness of the observable universe, in turn, points toward unusually tidy conditions near the Big Bang. We don’t understand why. But the order and smoothness, known to physicists as a state of low entropy, is a clue. “I strongly believe that the low entropy of the early universe is a puzzle that the wider cosmology community doesn’t take nearly as seriously as they should,” Carroll told me. “Misunderstandings like that offer opportunities for making new breakthroughs.”
___Interview with cosmologist Sean Carroll
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/what-came-before-the-big-bang/
Note --- Carroll's notion of creation in time deliberately ignores the traditional creation ex nihilo, since it does not fit with his materialistic worldview. And yet, he slipped-up with the "literally out of nothing" description.

You sound confident about the independence of our world from any uncaused First Cause. — Gnomon

:up:

[W]hat is the "exact nature" of that prior state, ...

TBD (by physics, not metaphysics)..

... and what is the evidence for it?

e.g. Black holes, cosmic inflation (i.e. accelerated expansion), quantum uncertainty (re: vacuum energy), Pauli Exclusion Principle ...

Have those cosmologists solved the "puzzle" of the hypothetical "prior state" with facts that us amateur philosophers don't know, ...

Not yet.

... or are they just guessing, ...?

I prefer the informed, educated guesswork of cosmologists to almost all non-scientists' 'speculative wankery' (e.g. "unmoved mover" "first cause" "creator-programmer") à la woo-of-the-gaps. :mask:

Cosmology has not concluded our world is dependent on anything. However, cosmologists are working on theory that explains the big bang, in terms of what the prior state was.
— Relativist
You sound confident about the independence of our world — Gnomon

Then you misunderstand. "The world" is the entirety of reality, which would include the supernatural, if it exists. If there exists a supernatural, then it might possibly have caused the natural world, but the broader landscape exists uncaused and without dependencies.

Now suppose there is no supernatural. The same logic applies: it would exist uncaused and without dependency. In either case, the world (the totality of reality) exists without cause or dependency.

Speaking of knowledge, what is the "exact nature" of that prior state, and what is the evidence for it? — Gnomon

We don't know it's exact nature, but it seems to me there's no reason to think it is supernatural, because there is no evidence of a supernatural existing.

Would you agree that the First Law of Thermodynamics implies that the Bang began with an unexplained input of Energy from that mysterious timeless prior state? Can you accept that the Multiverse conjecture is a myth, not a scientific fact? — Gnomon

The origin of the energy is unknown, although some cosmologists have speculated. What I object to is jumping to conclusions - as you seem to have done.

The multiverse hypothesis is not a myth. It's a mathematical inference of an assortment of scientific hypotheses. Nevertheless, it's certainly not settled science, and I would never insist it is necessarily true.

Would you agree that Cosmologists like Sean Carroll*3, when faced with speculating into a state where laws of nature break down, are doing Philosophy instead of Science? — Gnomon

That's often true, but there is also scientific work in progress to develop new theory. At this stage, I'm fine with treating all pre-big bang musings as metaphysical.

Before the Big Bang, the prevailing theory suggests a state of initial singularity.., — Gnomon

The "singularity" has never been considered a literal state of affairs. It just refers to the mathematical consequence of General Relativity as we calculate the density of the universe retrospectively, closer and closer to a radius of 0 (for the visible universe). The consensus of cosmologists is this mathematical singularity implies that General Realtivity isn't applicable, and that instead a quantum gravity theory is needed to understand the dynamics dominate below some density- but this goes beyond established physics.

The universe materialized literally out of nothing — Gnomon

No, that's logically impossible. Nothingness cannot beget somethingness. Nothingness is not even a logically possible state of affairs. If God created the universe, it could have been from a PHYSICAL nothingness, but not an absolute nothingness - because God himself is something. But this is pure speculation, one that assumes there exists a supernatural.

Carroll's notion of creation in time deliberately ignores the traditional creation ex nihilo, since it does not fit with his materialistic worldview. And yet, he slipped-up with the "literally out of nothing" description. — Gnomon

He has also discussed what is meant by nothingness - and noted that there are ambiguities. Laurence Krauss wrote a book about "something from nothing", but he took the existence of quantum fields for granted- so he wasn't considering an absolute nothingness. The author of the article you linked to seems to be unaware of the nuances. Sean Carroll does. In this article, he describes his view:


"It seems natural to ask why the universe exists at all. Modern physics suggests that the universe can exist all by itself as a self-contained system, without anything external to create or sustain it. But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation."

:100:

Non-sequitur. If it was initiated, then it wasn't the initial state of affairs. — Relativist

Err nope, but I also dealt with this as a language problem later in my post. Lets see what happens...

Either there was an initial state of affairs, or there's an infinite series of causes. — Relativist

Are causes not states of affairs? Or can causes be pried from 'states'? If there was an 'initial' state of affairs, than that already implies something before initiation. As above, this is simply not a credible thing to posit lol.

I've no idea what this means, or what "that" refers to. Besides, "implies" doesn't do the work of causes — 180 Proof

I am in no way surprised.

A state of affairs consisting of non-existence is a self-contradictory term. — Relativist

I didn't posit there was one. I posited that initiation implies something prior. That 'something' is obviously capable of be no-thing (again, language problem addressed later - we are literally unable to talk about 'no-thing' other than by inference).

existence = what IS — Relativist

Yep. And non-existence = nothing. Doesn't change the implication/inference of 'something' to 'nothing'.

I should be quite clear: I am not trying to posit that this is reasoning which would give us a good warrant to think that there ever wasn't anything. I am giving the reasoning which gives us pause to think that 'everything always was' which is just as absurd (in a general sense) as there being no-thing at no-time.

The inference is semantic, not ontological. We're discussing ontology- what exists, and what can be inferred to exist

Haha, no. We're discussing whether "nothing" could have ever obtained. And it could have. This, again, explains why neither you nor 180 are saying anything that seems to be relevant to me and my point here. If that's the discussion you've been having, then all is clarified lol.

I don't understand what you consider disconcerting. We can entertain possibilities. Either the past is finite, or it is infinite. There's no in-between. — Relativist

Oh, ok, so you share my position. Cool. What a mess... (not your fault or anything, just observing).

Then you misunderstand. "The world" is the entirety of reality, which would include the supernatural, if it exists. — Relativist

That statement depends on how you define "reality". Your comments seem to indicate that your "reality" excludes anything beyond the scope or our physical senses. Which are tuned to detect material substances. But philosophers are tuned into immaterial things like Other Minds. And we can infer that our interlocutors on this forum have rational minds (including AI ???), even though we can't see touch or taste them directly. The super-natural problem is similar : we infer other minds by analogy with our own inner experience. And reasoning is not a physical sense, but what philosophers think of as a meta-physical process of connecting dots. Which raises another question of definition ad infinitum. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Long story short, the theoretical pre-big-bang First Cause that you would call "supernatural", is in my own speculative worldview, analogous to the Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind that we experience in the Real world. I won't attempt to respond to your other assertions, because they all hinge on the same old dichotomy of worldviews*1, such as Materialism vs Idealism. For what it's worth, my personal worldview is not so black & white exclusive, but includes both Matter & Mind, and both immanent Nature & whatever transcendent force lit the fuse of the Big Bang nature machine. :smile:


*1. A dichotomy of worldviews refers to the tendency to divide perspectives, ideas, or values into two opposing categories. This can manifest in various contexts, such as the classic good vs. evil, or in more nuanced ways like the human/environment dichotomy. Understanding these contrasting viewpoints is crucial for navigating complex issues and fostering better communication and understanding.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=dichotomy+of+worldviews

But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation."

This is just speculation, all we know is that we don’t know and any speculation we do indulge in will be tainted by anthropomorphism. Where the anthropomorphism refers to the the human mind and its contents. Also that the answers we seek may be inconceivable to the human mind, or unintelligible.

I no longer respond directly to 's sneering Gnomon-directed diatribes on this forum, over the last ten years or so. Therefore, I will address these comments to someone who seems to be more open to two-way philosophical dialogue. I will stipulate here that he may be much more intelligent & informed than me, but that haughty position allows him to make mike-drop supercilious denunciations of what he deems inferior reasoning. I'm sure he's a nice person though, if you agree with his worldview. And I agree with the immanent half of his Weltanshauung. And these analogies are intended to be illustrative, not demeaning.

Re Transcendence :
Dialoging with 180 is like discussing with your dog how & why his bowl is sometimes full, and sometimes empty. Like the dog, 180's highly evolved physical senses can detect the food, but can't reason about inferential questions : “it just is or it ain't”. The communication problem is that 180 has an extensive vocabulary with which to express his disdain for deduction, from circumstantial evidence, how & why an event --- e.g. full bowl or universe --- came to be, if it was not witnessed.

180's prosecutorial technique, in the courtroom of this forum, is to break-down the detective's holistic reasoning & inferences & hunches into isolated facts that don't add-up : “speculation!” ; “inadmissible!” ; “irrelevant!” The human's sense of smell is inferior to that of the dog*1, but his sense of reason*2 is superior ; especially deduction from circumstantial evidence*3. 180's 17th century worldview is based on watertight logic, except in the light of 20th century Relativity*4 and Uncertainty Principle. 180's jury is instructed to focus on the disconnected facts, and ignore the dot-connecting reasoning.

Obviously, or inferentially, 180 is skillfully defending his Matter-Immanent-only worldview by using all the tricks of courtroom drama. In my humble opinion though, on this forum, you should be able to view the evidence from a Philosophical worldview that goes beyond the limits of scientific investigation, but not of logical reasoning. :smile:

PS___ I will now go stick my head in a fox hole, to protect me from the return blast of icy logic.


*1. While dogs demonstrate impressive cognitive abilities, particularly in practical reasoning and inferential reasoning, human reasoning is significantly more complex. Humans excel at abstract thought, integrating diverse knowledge, and engaging in various forms of reasoning like deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Dogs, on the other hand, are more attuned to the present and rely heavily on sensory information and past experiences to solve problems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=dog+reason+vs+human+reasoning
Note --- I'm not calling 180 a "dog", but merely illustrating the difference between practical Materialistic & theoretical Idealistic reasoning.

*2. "Sense of reason" refers to the capacity for logical thought and sound judgment, enabling individuals to understand, analyze, and make decisions based on evidence and logic. It involves the ability to draw inferences, solve problems, and form conclusions through a process of reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sense+of+reason
Note --- Unlike Science, Philosophy seldom has hard evidence to support its conclusions. So they are always debatable. But on a public forum, the dialog should be respectful of a variety of opinions. Are canine examples admissible?

*3.Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that suggests a fact in issue but doesn't directly prove it. It requires the fact-finder to draw inferences to connect the evidence to the fact in question. In essence, it's evidence that implies something happened or is true without directly proving it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=circumstantial+evidence 
Note --- The suggested "fact" in question is a transcendental prior state to the Big Bang. Which opens to door to further reasoning on the ancient God question.

*4. Einstein's theory of relativity, encompassing both special and general relativity, significantly impacted philosophical thought by challenging fundamental assumptions about space, time, gravity, and the nature of reality itself. It questioned classical Newtonian physics' concepts of absolute space and time, introducing the idea of a spacetime continuum where space and time are interwoven and relative to the observer's motion. This shift in perspective influenced philosophical discussions on causality, determinism, and the nature of scientific knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+relativity+philosophy
Note --- The Big Bang theory presented us with a hiatus in the spacetime continuum. Must we fill that knowledge-gap with more spacetime, or entertain the possibility of Infinity-Eternity?

We're discussing whether "nothing" could have ever obtained. And it could have. — AmadeusD

Absolute nothingness is conceivable and it is logically possible, but it is metaphysically impossible in a world in which things exist.

. I posited that initiation implies something prior. That 'something' is obviously capable of be no-thing — AmadeusD

IMO, time initiated FROM the initial state of affairs. So that state of affairs had the potential to do so, and it is the cause of time/change. But it's not at all clear what time IS, so deeper analysis is on shaky grounds. Anyway, that's my position, and I can't make sense of you claim that "no-thing" could have caused anything.

Are causes not states of affairs? — AmadeusD

Yes, IMO, causes are states of affairs. Also: everything that exists is a thing = a particular with properties= a state of affairs. So the notion that "no-thing" could be a cause makes no sense to me. But you must mean something else.

so you share my position. — AmadeusD

Maybe. I believe there's a better reason to think the past is finite than infinite, but lots of smart people disagree with me.

:eyes: