180 Proof

Not-nothing aka "something" is, so to speak, a ripple in nothing. As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo t...

I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed.

This story makes more sense – is more consistent with quantum cosmological evidence (as well as e.g. Spinoza's, Epicurus' & Laozi's spectulations) – t...

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

:up: :up:

At minimum, 'idealism' implies (A) that brains are 'not mind-independent' and (B) that (a priori) 'minds are substances' rather than what brains do.

Ever a drunk in recovery/reflection, I'll drink to your fact-based, autopoietic story. :up:

:up: :up: :eyes: wtf ...

Formalisms are vacuous and irrelevent with respect to claims about the (non-abstract) world. Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious te...

:roll: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=wcp23&id=wcp23_2018_0002_0001_0025_0035

:up:

:up: :up:

I fail to see your point.

Why do you ask?

Ockham the Barber says "Yes". Of course. :smirk:

Well, I don't see how your question is warranted by – addresses – my reply.

I'm not aware of any religious texts (scriptures) which are not, at least, demonstrable fictions.. Incoherences and falsities. It only requires showin...

:up: :up: :100: "My worldview" consists of (A) anti-supernatural, (B) anti-authoritarian/sectarian/utopian, and (C) anti-dogmatic commitments (i.e. co...

:victory: :smirk:

:up: :up:

:smirk:

:up:

:up: :up:

X#÷^@WVH isn't "completely understood" either. Maybe because "nothing" stops something from coming-to-be, etc.

:100:

:fire: :up:

Yet (any) "cosmic rationale" itself is merely a "fluke of" . There's no getting away from (some kind of) a fundamental "fluke" – I prefer one that is ...

:meh:

– does not "transcend" being anymore than the center of the Earth "transcends" the Earth. Only not-X (nonbeing) "transcends" X (being).

:snicker: Ninja'd.

:up: :up:

:smirk: :up:

Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that much.

The conclusion doesn't follow: hasty generalization fallacy (at least).

:up: :up:

Sorry, more evocative gibberish – "heart" cannot transcend – your analogy makes even less sense now.

:up: :up: :100:

– is only nonexistence.

:smirk:

:100: Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth. Olympus Mons, which is on Mars, is over three times taller – neither are "the tallest" possible mounta...

Explain why it doesn't.

:yikes: :lol: :rofl:

:up: :up:

Existence is a brute fact and does not require "justification". Besides, even a "transcendent" why begs its own question / precipitates an infinite re...

Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical".

:lol: Tell that to neo/Kantians ... :roll: :up:

Clearly, you're in denial ... . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism#Arguments_against_dualism I.e. folk psychology (akin to supers...

Once more: I'm a compatibilist – my conscious volition (i.e. decision-making, choosing) is a function of, or constrained by, prior unconscious involun...

I've no more idea of what you mean than you do, 'gruel.

No I don't. I'm a compatibilist. I'm not at all familiar with these terms.