Very good questions. We are accustomed to objects, material things. I am unable to perceive the immaterial; I wonder if it does exist. If it does, it makes the universe better. My view is that becoming actual from potential, the potential energy now actual became the big bang. I can understand your reluctance to accept this view posted by me. My most serious question is this: DOES THE IMMATERIAL EXIST? The whole post depends on the answer to that question.

Space exists. — universeness

Space is a fascinating concept. It definitely exists in our minds.

DOES THE IMMATERIAL EXIST? — val p miranda

Has the material even been determined to exist in actuality? The answer to that may offer some clues.

Was there a singularity? Science is not able to proceed beyond the big bang — val p miranda

Singularity is just a label for a collection of attributes such as infinite density, infinite energy concentration, unknown dimensionality/shape, defies the word 'size' etc but it's what the universe is posited as coming from. Did you mean to say that science is ONLY ABLE to proceed beyond the big band? We know absolutely nothing about what created the singularity or 'before' the big bang except for hypotheses such as the multiverse, the cyclic Universe, eternal inflation etc

On nothing. To me it so simple. Nothing is a concept with no existence; nothing does not exist. One should not put much stock in non-existence — val p miranda

You made that clear in your OP.
Humans cannot perceive the concept of 'nothing' but that alone is not proof that it does not and cannot exist.
Roger Penrose discusses the demise of our own Universe due to entropy. In the final stages, we are left with a Universe that has expanse, no mass, energy only. This would not match the concept of nothing, but Penrose then makes an excellent conceptual jump imo.
He posits that at that point, the term 'big' has no intrinsic meaning and it is equivalent to the term small or sizeless.
Under these conditions, time, maybe reset to 0 and all of the energy concentrate left in the Universe can be a singularity and cause a new big bang, or a new Universe to begin. He and his team believe they have found 6 'Hawking points,' which are areas of different temperatures within the cosmic microwave background radiation which are a result of a previous Universe cycle.
He has published papers that show that the evidence to back this up is very strong and he is still waiting for an adequate response from the current cosmology community.

Space is a fascinating concept. It definitely exists in our minds — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you move in, if not space?

What do you move in, if not space? — universeness

Sorry, I was just exercising my Cartesian doubt. It's fun to exercise the mind with such philosophical extremes. Movement is dependent on the concept of extension, and it requires the notion of duration to make it so. The big question is whether we apprehend these concepts from our experience, or project them onto our experience? Do we discover or create? Or if its a synthesis, what is the dynamic?

DOES THE IMMATERIAL EXIST? The whole post depends on the answer to that question. — val p miranda

For you, is this the same question as, 'does the supernatural exist?' and 'does god exist?'

Can I scratch an annoying itch as well? based on your use of 'uncaused cause.' @jamal already raised a valid objection to my claim that it is a nonsense term but I would like to put it another way.
I can envisage an outcome having a cause.
I can even (if I suspend my critical and rational thinking) envisage a posit such as god or a 'first cause' or 'prime mover/agent' which is eternal and had no cause, so it is uncaused. But under what logic can you combine these two terms into uncaused cause? I don't understand why a bad phrase coined by a confused theist (only my opinion) such as Thomas Aquinas should still have any credence today.
Many terms used by people in the past were poorly formed by today's standards.
I feel a similar way, but perhaps not as intensely, towards your Aristotelian 'efficient cause' term.
I am not pushing a major gripe here, I am just trying to scratch an itch as I explained.

Sorry, I was just exercising my Cartesian doubt. It's fun to exercise the mind with such philosophical extremes. — Merkwurdichliebe

Especially after 10 good measures of a good peaty Scottish single malt such as Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Caol Ila, Ileach etc.

Movement is dependent on the concept of extension, and it requires the notion of duration to make it so. The big question is whether we apprehend these concepts from our experience, or project them onto our experience? Do we discover or create? Or if its a synthesis, what is the dynamic? — Merkwurdichliebe

But if extension and duration are not real then the only alternative is unreal or an emulation/simulation.
Are you just asking the question 'is the universe a simulation,' which if true means Descartes was wrong and we don't need to even consider solipsism. I don't think those who are simulated can ever find out the dynamic or the reasons/justifications of the simulators. This is similar to the theistic claim that we cannot know the mind of god but it also contradicts the Greek's assertion of cosmos or that the universe is knowable. Its also of course possible that we are the victims of nefarious powerful beings who have duped us into living as emulations/simulations (matrix movie-style)!
I don't see much difference between the plausibility of the tale told under the movie tile matrix and the tale told under the theistic titles 'bible,' 'quran,' 'torah,' 'bhagavad gita.' or 'fairy tales by Hans CHRISTIAN Anderson.'

Was there a singularity? Science is not able to proceed beyond the big bang — val p miranda

That remains to be seen. The Aristotle apperception of an unmoved mover can still be applied. The unmoved mover being a physical entity.

I don't see much difference between the plausibility of the tale told under the movie tile matrix and the tale told under the theistic titles 'bible,' 'quran,' 'torah,' 'bhagavad gita.' or 'fairy tales by Hans CHRISTIAN Anderson — universeness

The bible is the best-selling fiction novel ever! Still, how can we ever be sure of the non-existence of God? One might lay the burden of proof on the faithfully, but what if their default state is Gid+Universe. Why should they prove something in the first place? Does the atheist have to prove the non existence of God? Which would be rather difficult though. How you proof something doesn't exist?

:smile: Cudos for choosing a star wars handle and one of the most controversial characters amongst the star wars fans. Was that why you chose it?

The bible is the best-selling fiction novel ever! — Jarjar

I tend to agree with this. If they serialised it and stayed true to its content (especially the old testament), it would be far more disturbing that Games of Thrones ever was. This god character in the old testament is far nastier than most other characters I have read about in ancient or modern storytelling.

Still, how can we ever be sure of the non-existence of God?
One might lay the burden of proof on the faithfully, but what if their default state is Gid+Universe. Why should they prove something in the first place? Does the atheist have to prove the non existence of God? Which would be rather difficult though. How you proof something doesn't exist? — Jarjar

As an athiest, I cannot disprove the existence of god. Perhaps science will keep advancing the evidence against its existence, that's good enough for me because unless their god has the ability and the balls to show up and explain itself, theism is unlikely to produce any valid evidence in the future.
I think the burden of proof lies with theists as atheists have nothing to prove because to me, an atheist is just someone who says to all theists, I don't believe you, where is your proof?

Meantime, I for one, can match the vigour, conviction, determination, level of insistence and certainly the logic and rationale employed by theism, even the more energetic evanhellical versions.
I think that its their numbers that are reducing, especially amongst those who are getting increased access to personal education.
Global theism has been losing its power to influence and/or terrorise uneducated masses of people since the invention of the concept of education for all.

Cudos for choosing a star wars handle and one of the most controversial characters amongst the star wars fans. Was that why you chose it? — universeness

Well, what's in a name?

evanhellical — universeness

:lol:

Saw Ricky Gervais yesterday. He's got a way with atheism! Laughed my pants off!

God:
"Let's create AIDS creatures...
Don't like the sight of them gays in each other's a***s!"

God finished creating them

"So, little divine creature, when on Earth look for them gay a***s."

"Why why why?"

"Because that where they contact"

"Why why why?"

"They're weird! Don't like them! So enter and when a d***k enters jump in! But some must stay. If I know them well, surely another enters!"

"Yeaeaeaeahhhh....!"

the logic and rationale employed by theism — universeness

What then are the rationale and logic behind theism? What's the rationale behind the divine spark, so to speak?

What then are the rationale and logic behind theism? What's the rationale behind the divine spark, so to speak? — Jarjar

No rationale at all, just manifestations of wishful protections against primal fears.

No rationale at all, just manifestations of wishful protections against primal fears — universeness

Are these what you mean by rationale and logic behind theism? Protections of primal fears? How does God protect against primal fears?

Are these what you mean by rationale and logic behind theism? Protections of primal fears? — Jarjar

You sound familiar!

How does God protect against primal fears? — Jarjar

Ask a theist, perhaps @hillary.

Who is @hilary?

Who is hillary? — Jarjar

A polytheist.

How does God protect against primal fears? — Jarjar

Because god is promoted as a superhero who cares about you and will look after you if you comply with its dictates.

Because god is promoted as a superhero who cares about you and will look after you if you comply with its dictates. — universeness

Yes. Probably why there are so many comic book superhero movies.

Yes. Probably why there are so many comic book superhero movies — Jackson

Well some of the early gods have actually become comic-based superheros, such as Thor and the rest are based on classical or biblical characters such as Hercules...Samson....Goliath....being represented by characters like the hulk or the thing in the fantastic 4.
These fables do nonetheless certainly offer a nice easy way to make a good living for those who claim to speak in gods name, such as popes, priests, ministers, imams, rabbi's etc

These fables do nonetheless certainly offer a nice easy way to make a good living for those who claim to speak in gods name, such as popes, priests, ministers, imams, rabbi's etc — universeness

Yes. "God told me to tell you...."

Yeah, they have even learned to shout from the pulpit as 'not god told me to' but god commanded me to and now he commands you to....
I caught an excerpt from an evanHELLical style TV channel recently and they were on 'fundraising' mode.
I could not believe the performance, they even brought in speaking in tongues.
It was a shocking litany of hard-sell tactics. At one point a vile preacher suggested that if people were struggling to decide between buying 'necessaries for themselves' or contributing to 'gods holy cause,' they must contribute to god almighty because that can help save their very soul!'
Utter nefarious b*******!

Yeah, they have even learned to shout from the pulpit as 'not god told me to' but god commanded me to and now he commands you to....
I caught an excerpt from an evanHELLical style TV channel recently and they were on 'fundraising' mode.
I could not believe the performance, they even brought in speaking in tongues.
It was a shocking litany of hard-sell tactics. At one point a vile preacher suggested that if people were struggling to decide between buying 'necessaries for themselves' or contributing to 'gods holy cause,' they must contribute to god almighty because that can help save their very soul!'
Utter nefarious b*******! — universeness

Years ago I talked to a priest about a religious issue. His only response was that my problem was being Protestant. I had to be Catholic. Helped me decide to drop Christianity altogethere.

Years ago I talked to a priest about a religious issue. His only response was that my problem was being Protestant. I had to be Catholic. Helped me decide to drop Christianity altogethere — Jackson

Sounds about par for the course. Your response was the best response imo. :clap:
I never seem to run out of examples of nefarious theists and their nefarious deeds when theists claim that atheists cannot be moral individuals and want to act like animals in the jungle. :lol:

I reread your op. There are many possibilities as to how the world is actual. Kantian idealism can be seen as stating positing a pure Platonic world who's shadows are this world. For Kant, the mind alone finds these universals. So your "nothing" would be *this world*.

In my view, immaterial space is the precursor to actual space; it became actual space. Immaterial space is natural, has nothing to do with the supernatural. I can launch argument in support of immaterial space such as the material could not create itself and must have been created by the immaterial since that is all left. I have stronger arguments.

You need to offer more on your concept of 'immaterial space'. Your descriptions of it so far don't offer much. In what way is your immaterial space, natural. Especially considering the word is described as
referring to something of 'no importance' or, philosophically, as:

spiritual, rather than physical.
"we have immaterial souls"
synonyms:
intangible · incorporeal · not material · bodiless · unembodied · disembodied · impalpable · ethereal · unsubstantial · insubstantial · airy · aerial · spiritual · ghostly · spectral · wraithlike · transcendental · unearthly · supernatural · discarnate · disincarnate · unbodied · phantasmal · phantasmic

Thanks for post. Since nothing does not exist, my post is of a something world. Kant and Berkeley fought a material world. My immaterial space should not be associated with their world.

You need to offer more on your concept of 'immaterial space'. — universeness

The first uncaused cause was immaterial space. — val p miranda

Just like that! Rabbit out of hat. No further explanation needed, or worth pursuing. Move along.