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?” elicits the reasoning that reveals that math, logic, and science are incomplete and also that the universe is open (it didn’t start from nothing) and cannot be closed. — ucarr

Gödel proved that any mathematical system is necessarily incomplete, but this does not imply the "universe is open". Given the fact that there is a universe, it follows that there is not, and never was, a 'state of nothingness", that preceded it (temporally or causally). The reasoning is parallel to your support of your premise 1.

I suspect you wish to assume there did exist a prior state of "God sans universe". That's logically possible, but it's an unwarranted assumption. Here's why:

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.

I did not mean to express a prohibition. The Goddess implores the visitor to not try to say what is not sayable. She also observes that many do. 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.

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

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.

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

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

I don't know what "insuperable immersion in being" means. But as I said, I think the only meaningful question is "why does the universe exist?" No purported inquiry into "nothing" is needed to address that question.

Is there a logical escape from the somethingness that is the phenomenon of creating somethingness from nothingness? — ucarr

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.

— Parmenides, 8: 34-41, Wheelwright Edition — Paine

My vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydjBxed0Pm0

I fail to see your point.

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

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?

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.

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? — ucarr

It's at least logically possible the universe is finite to the past, and therefore closed to the past. My personal opinion is that this is indeed the case, because an infinite past would entail a completed series of steps of finite duration (call these "days"). It is not logically possible to add up to infinity through increments of finite duration.

Being open to the future doesn't have any problems I can think of. Proceding forward in time, each day is a new "now", but the process will never "reach" infinity. In this context, an infinite future just entails an unending process. I guess if you embrace B-theory of time ("block" time), it would be a problem because it would entail a block that is infinite in extent - but IMO, this is an argument against block time.

...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?

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?

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

Why must there be a reason?

I understand your reaction to drawing a line regarding what can be said. I am quoting Parmenides rather than defending him in a different place from his. I want to throw him back to you as your problem as much as it can be mine.

There doesn't have to be a reason. Nor does the question have to be considered.

Only that if there is an answer, it will be determined by science (physicists probably, or cosmologists).