Ifga

Let's start with what you believe. If you do not believe something is eternal, then it seems you must believe at some point there was absolute Nothingness. Not essentially nothing, not virtually nothing, but absolute Nothingness. From that, it seems, something began. I do not understand how something can come about from nothing. Can you explain that somehow? By my way of thinking, certainly the universe may be eternal. Or possibly it came about from something else - oscillating universes, arising, retreating, arising, in endless cycles. Unlike you, I believe there has always been something, the past is infinate, without beginning. As to whether or not a creator adds a level of complexity, I do not see it that way. When I see a tree, I suppose there was a seed, then roots, then a stem. You might ask why all this complexity. There is a tree. Why must there be more of the history of the tree. Of course you do not. Trees begin with seeds (often, sometimes other methods, but never just suddenly just a tree). This is a natural progression. No reasonable person believes there has always been a tree. Unlike you, I believe there always has been something. The decision is between a universe, or a creator. I By my understanding, many Scientists say the universe had a beginning. They have no substantial clue what existed one second before the universe. That seems very complicated to me. They have to imagine there was something, matter, anti-matter, energy, some combination, but who knows. A complete unknown. Hardly simple, or it could be described.

I responded to this: "Religious "philosophers" claim that there must be an "uncaused" cause to start it all off. But that's a nonsense. If you can have an uncaused cause, then you can have an uncaused Universe. " When you responded to me, I assumed you were continuing the conversation. Of course I do not agree "... that the concept that the sun circles the earth has had much support since pre-historic time?" A heliocentric universe has been demonstrated as a false belief. It has not had any support I know about for centuries. Maybe among your circle of friends...? I am not the one who raised the issue of religious philosophers. I see no inconsistency in my posts. I do not find the concept of "true Nothingness, in the most absolute sense." to be confusing, or ambiguous. I do understand that others try to. Statements such as " It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. " do not describe true Nothingness. I therefore take your reference to support my claim that the probability of such an occurrence is not some number greater than zero. "Essentially nothing", for my understandng, equates to "virtually nothing", which means quite clearly, something.

We agree there is something eternal, it seems. Something eternal had no need for a creator. Do I really need to explain why?

And that explains the beginning of the universe? What is the logic, reasoning, or evidence to support such a claim?

Do animals have beliefs? It seems to me they do. If they do not have beliefs, what do we call their mental activity regarding 'stuff'? A bird that uses tools to solve a problem has knowledge about the general quality of tools available. Given a choice, a better tool will be chosen. Similar for a chimpanzee. African apes, then or now, have knowledge, justified true beliefs. Animals have not only brains, but minds as well. It seems to me. There are two choices. 1) An uncaused, spontaneous first beginning of everything, or, if you choose, of anything, from true Nothingness, in the most absolute sense. 2) An eternal existence without beginning. The former seems, less than possible. For the latter, there are two choices. 1) Unmotivated, undirectional, unnconscious, Existence, or, 2) Motivated, directional, conscious Being. I see no reason, logic, evidence, to favor the former. The latter, has had much support since pre-historic time. That, in itself, provides some small amount of reason and logic.