Suppose cosmologists develop a testable theory that accounts for the conditions at the big bang? Would you abandon your hypothesis, or revise it? — Relativist

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

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

... and what is the evidence for it?

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, ...?

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

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

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

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

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

So much thinking may become so concrete, as if models, including the mathematical and scientific ones, are seen as all encompassing. This may show a bias and diminishing of human reason — Jack Cummins

Is story and metaphor central to all understanding of 'truth'? — Jack Cummins

The fact that you replied to me shows that the world is pretty much as it seems. — Banno

We are all mortal beings as we pursue the philosophical questions. Everything in life is impermanent and all exploration occurs within the uncertainties of an unknown future. — Jack Cummins

Thunderbolt and lightning,
very, very frightening
me
(Galileo)
Galileo,
(Galileo)
Galileo,
Galileo Figaro,
magnifico ...

There is no such thing as truth. — Kurt

logos has been used to demythologize – but cannot fully eliminate – mythos — 180 Proof

Idealists don't play in traffic? — RogueAI

what if what I am seeing is not what is really there, ...? — Kurt

What do you think about the juxtaposition between ]logos and myth in the scheme of philosophical understanding? — Jack Cummins

I'm suspicious of using this explanatory gap as an excuse to believe in some sort of spiritualism. — Relativist

If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. — Gnomon

I embrace physicalism because (AFAIK) it's the best general answer to the nature of reality. I don't have some undying faith in it, and I know it has its limitations. But I treat it as the premise when analyzing everything in the world. This seems the most pragmatic approach — Relativist

Behold, the enemy! — unenlightened

I am thinking that your issues may come down to diabetes, which is so prevalent. — Jack Cummins

embodied beings

[W]e're not in a position to know whether people care about others or not. We can only judge by actions, not by sentiment or professed values. What do people actually do? — Tom Storm

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. — alleybear

[A]ll I know about this logical necessity ... — Gnomon

... how we, and our world, evolved from mathematical Big Bang Singularity

Are you familiar with D M Armstrong? — Wayfarer

[P]hysics is based on a useful abstraction, which has yielded enormous physical powers, but at the expense of excluding fundamental aspects of human existence. — Wayfarer

... thinking about the nature of compassion. — Jack Cummins

Does Empathy Always Lead to Sympathy?

I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based?

Is it leading to moral indifference and based on the philosophy of the objective idea of the importance of 'emotional detachment as an ethical ideal?

What do you think about the ideas of sympathy, empathy and its relevance for life?.

Logic is not inherent in existence itself, whatever that means. To the extent it is a discovery, it is a discovery about the way our minds work, not about anything in the world outside ourselves. — T Clark

So - magical? Well, I think not, but something even greater in some respects
— Wayfarer
This is what I see as an enormous problem in your position. It depends on uncritically accepting the existence of magic (or "something even greater"). I've seen no justification for this other than arguments from authority (the ancients had this view) and arguments from ignorance (physicalism's explanatory gap). — Relativist

Could it be that humans are unrealistically impressed by reason, treating it as the highest or even only valid form of understanding? But reason is just one tool among many, and has limited use. It struggles with emotions, ambiguity, and subjective experiences. It's clear that no logical argument can fully capture grief, happiness, aesthetic appreciation, or empathy. I wonder if we overestimate its power, forgetting that perhaps it evolved for survival, not for solving metaphysical puzzles or guaranteeing truth. — Tom Storm

Plantinga's argument is fatally flawed. In order to survive, every organism needs a functionally accurate perception of its environment to successfully interact with it. Primitive rationality is exhibited when animals adapt there hunting behavior when necessary, doing things that work instead of those that don't. The evolution of abstract reasoning would have been an evolutionary dead end leading to extinction, if it worsened our ability to interact with the environment. — Relativist

The moment anything exists - anything that has potential for differentiation - logical structure emerges naturally. Where there's being, there's logic. — tom111

What I haven't seen is a justification for believing there is ontological teleology. It seems a guess, just like physicalism is a guess - but physicalism strays very little from the known. — Relativist

Do you think reason is a useful means of evaluating conceptions of God? — Tom Storm