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).

I want us to examine some details of pi's irrationality in application to: — ucarr

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

Let's suppose all of your scriptural investigations are correct: all of your encounters have been with religious texts that are demonstrable fictions. Regarding your anti-theism project, you still haven't crossed home plate.

There's a fundamental gap between "truth" and "provability" within formal systems (math, logic). Regarding verbal language, given its vagueness, ambiguity, and contextual variance, the gap is even wider.

A given scripture with God as a character might be demonstrable fiction in context, but can it be proven such in general terms? We know the claim it's fiction is true, but can we prove it formally? Perhaps we can in some instances. Can it be proven in all instances?

Can we conceptualize all scripture, written and still to be written, as an infinite series that can be summed to an integral without a remainder? Such a summation would be the proof of the infinite set of narratives being summed to an integral establishing cardinal falsehood. Of the two types of infinite series, the convergent type shows many instances with no "closed-form" solutions. The "exact answer" is the infinite series or the integral. A solution to a specific infinite series might be tailor made to fit, but the remainder will always be non-zero.

Let's put the proof of the fictional status of all scriptures into the context of the Turing Halting Problem.
Can we compute for all proofs of scriptural fiction a universal program that can determine whether the proof stops at a cardinal value, or keeps running, forever remaindering the summation to an integral? Turing shows us the answer is, "No." By writing a "pathological program" that inputs the contradiction of what the universal program validates, he created a paradoxical output that derails universality.

Gödel showed us that within all sufficient formal systems, you'll get a statement like this one, "This sentence is not provable." If it's provable, it's false (contradiction); if it's not provable, it's true (meaning it's a true, unprovable statement, i.e., undecidable). This is proof of permanent unprovability.

The character of God in a narrative, once rendered irrational, might be demonstrably false, but are there any formal systems that can always prove this falsehood? Are there any verbal languages that can always prove this falsehood?

Formalism are vacuous and irrelevent with respect to claims about the (non-abstract) world.

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.

Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
(1) at least one mystery
(2) created the whole of existence and
(3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in a way that is nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles").

Are there any verbal languages that can always prove this falsehood? — ucarr

- we note the ultimate lightnesss of being as we delve beneath it all; complexities arise in steps from that simplex; the supposed 'God' is a complexity and thus cannot be First.

Formalism are vacuous and irrelevent with respect claims about the (non-abstract) world. — 180 Proof

You seem to be saying math and logic have no practical applications.

Gödel showed us that within all sufficient formal systems, you'll get a statement like this one, "This sentence is not provable." If it's provable, it's false (contradiction); if it's not provable, it's true (meaning it's a true, unprovable statement, i.e., undecidable). This is proof of permanent unprovability. — ucarr

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem ended Hilbert's project for organizing all math logic into one universal system. This is a practical application of Gödel's logic.

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text. — 180 Proof

Let's suppose all of your scriptural investigations are correct: all of your encounters have been with religious texts that are demonstrable fictions. — ucarr

My argument centers on the logic of the infinite series to integral sum. This container, being infinite, contains all possible verifications of scriptural fiction. As you know, this infinity of verifications doesn't preclude a citation of a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text, unless it is proven true within a consistent system; then no contradiction can exist.

Logical proof within a consistent system is what I'm asking for from you. I cite Gödel and Turing because, together, their work within consistent logical formalisms establishes that no such proof can be made within a consistent system with respect to all instances of true statements generated within the consistent system. There is no general refutation nor general proof of certain true statements generated within robust, consistent axiomatic systems. Certain of these statements are undecidable.

To summarize: a) your long, empirical list of scriptural statements doesn't preclude existence of scriptural truth, which example thereof you've asked for; b) proof within a robust, consistent axiomatic system of a finite number of true statements is possible; proof of all possible logical conclusions within a consistent axiomatic system is what's required, but Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem establish the necessary appearance of some logical statements undecidable.

You can choose to believe all scriptural narratives are fictions, you cannot formally prove all scriptural narratives are fictions. Gödel and Turing have shown, within formal systems there's an impassable gap between truth and provability due to the unavoidable generation of undecidable expressions.

[C]omplexities arise in steps from that simplex; the supposed 'God' is a complexity and thus cannot be First. — PoeticUniverse

:up: :up:

:eyes: wtf ...

The premises are true: “I am asking a question; therefore I exist, which implies that nothingness is not unrestricted. — ucarr

"Cogito, ergo sum" is sloppy critical thinking since Descartes never really bother to go down the skepticism rabbit hole when he came up with it. Another tell-tale sign he was taking short cuts is that he claimed that he realized "God" was real even though he admitted Cogito, ergo sum can only prove the questioner is "real" which it doesn't even do that because all it does is use sleight of hand word play to cause the reader to accept a belief they already believe. Without answering the questions what "existence", "thinking", or what "existing" means you can't prove there is an "I" but since so few even understand the problem they just not in agreement with Descartes and his supporters.

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? — ucarr

"religion is the opium of the masses" - Karl Marx.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful," - Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC–AD 65).

Most ideas that come from Abrahamic religions start with an idea that supports the belief that God exists and then uses weak logic to support it. Even theism says that faith in "God" requires blind faith for it to work. Since theism rests solely on smoke, mirrors, and blind faith for it to work it can be be dismissed even if one doesn't from an agnostic position and/or a position where they do not follow any other system of beliefs.

"Religion is the opium of the masses" - Karl Marx.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful," - Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC–AD 65).

Most ideas that come from Abrahamic religions start with an idea that supports the belief that God exists and then uses weak logic to support it. [ ... ] Since theism rests solely on smoke, mirrors, and blind faith for it to work, it can be be dismissed ... — dclements

:up: :up:

Descartes declares, "I think, therefore I am." He does this in order to launch a chain of reasoning towards the conclusion: "God's existence is necessary."

My simple variation on Descartes' Cogito undertakes a much easier task: establish that there is not nothing because the question, "Why is there not nothing?" was asked. Obviously, if a question is asked, there exists a questioner asking it. This means there's at least one existing thing, the questioner. Therefore, there is not nothing.

My variation on Descartes' Cogito goes as follows: If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A.

Can you show a logical flaw in the above chain of reasoning?

...Cogito, ergo sum can only prove the questioner is "real" which it doesn't even do that because all it does is use sleight of hand word play to cause the reader to accept a belief they already believe. Without answering the questions what "existence", "thinking", or what "existing" means you can't prove there is an "I"... — dclements

Show how no elaboration of the meaning of existence and thinking refutes: If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists. Sidebar: Even if you ignore the existence of the questioner, still, something exists, the question. We know this because the cause of my cogito variation is my response to, "Why is there not nothing?" If the question exists, then there's at least one existing thing, and that refutes nothingness.

Perhaps you're proceeding from an argument based on logical validity alone not proving facts of reality.

Logical validity, i.e., correct logical form, plus a sound argument, i.e., a true premise, proves a fact of reality. I reaffirm that my premise is true and my logical form is correct.

"Existence" as such is presupposed and not proven. "Why not nothing?" As I've pointed out already, (because) nothing negates existence or prevents (its) occurrence. Besides, "the cogito" is neither sound nor a proof. In so far as existence is a brute fact (i.e. eternal and infinite ~Spinoza, Epicurus, Laozi), a 'transcendent creator deity' necessarily is nothing more than a conceptually incoherent fiction (~Feuerbach et al) living rent free in the minds of religious believers & magical thinkers. :sparkle:

However, if I am wrong (What does a pragmatic anti-supernationalist like me know anyway?), ucarr, soundly refute these three implicit points . :chin:

Descartes declares, "I think, therefore I am." He does this in order to launch a chain of reasoning towards the conclusion: "God's existence is necessary." — ucarr

My simple variation on Descartes' Cogito undertakes a much easier task: establish that there is not nothing because the question, "Why is there not nothing?" was asked. Obviously, if a question is asked, there exists a questioner asking it. This means there's at least one existing thing, the questioner. Therefore, there is not nothing. — ucarr

"Existence" as such is presupposed and not proven. "Why not nothing?" As I've pointed out already, (because) nothing negates or prevents existence. — 180 Proof

I say that, "One cannot reason to existence." Reasoning presupposes existence, however. As for concluding existence cannot be proven, I'm less sanguine on that conclusion than you, chiefly because each human individual has a tautological-identity certainty of existence. I don't suppose the state of being's lack of proof allows you to doubt your own existence. If so, wouldn't that be taking solipsism one step further, "My skepticism is so extreme, I doubt even myself." ( I do suppose your pun on nothing is unintentional. Assuming the pun, the sentence is paradoxical.)

I think my upshot here regarding our views on existence vs. nothingness says, "They stand just about equal."

..."the cogito" is neither sound nor a proof [... of God] — 180 Proof

I'm not seeking to prove God's existence by means of the cogito alone.* I think, however, that my argument from the asking of a question to the verification of at least one existing questioner is both valid and sound. Do you see errors?

*The heart of my reasoning for God's existence lies within the verbiage that earned another one of your WTFs.

Do you see errors? — ucarr

I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed.