Aarvoll

I know you view it as complex, but you don't view it as particular. For you this universe isn't a particular instance of anything, it is the totality of everything. That's why you say that "coming to be" isn't applicable to it. My objection to a position like yours is that I don't think you can offer a compelling reason why we see the complex reality that we do rather than some other hypothetically possible one, and I assume your response would be to undermine that question and say it doesn't apply to the Parmenidean One. Ironically I think I'm also appealing to the Parmenidean One as a unique non particular and ultimately inexplicable reality, but I interpret Parmenides Platonically and you don't.

@Aarvoll_ No, we both view reality as complex, although perhaps we mean different things by that term. I say that reality is full of meaning. But now you mention "come to be", and again I have to point out that this is not a valid term here. It's a denial of identity at this scope.

A disjunctive syllogism for supposing God's existence from epistemology: -A complex reality requires an explanation -Explanation must be in terms of causes -An infinite chain of causes is not an explanation -The causal chain must terminate in either a simple or complex first cause -A complex first cause, per premise 1, requires further explanation, but being supposed first can't offer one ∴A simple first cause is the only epistemologically satisfying one But a simple first cause containing the principles of all complex reality is the classical notion of God, so that notion of God is the only epistemologically satisfying explanation of reality.

If jews didn't have double standards they'd have no standards at all

So if you don't give away your homelands to an unending stream of people from the third world, you're a hateful bigot, and if you try to build communities to preserve your identity despite that, the establishment will try to financially ruin you - but White genocide is a myth...

You can suppose the universe just is and that we can't explain why it's this one rather than some other, but what if we can understand why this particular universe exists? It's premature to assume that kind of knowledge is impossible for us. It's a hubristic skepticism that's sure that it can't know. A less dogmatic skepticism should be uncertain whether or not the knowledge of the universe's origin is accessible for us.

Cause and effect are properties of our universe, necessitated and imposed by the passage of time in only one direction. A "cause" for the universe need not be required, or even make sense outside the confines of space and time as we know them. Once you try to logically pass through that boundary where space and time begin, all reason breaks down and your rules don't apply. It is just as valid to say the universe emerged for no reason at all, and simultaneously every reason there could possibly be. Indeed, the only thing we can say is that the universe exists because it started existing. This is why I don't really bother with this question.

@Tweetophon Every particular complex thing has an explanation for how it came to be. I view this universe as a particular complex thing, you don't, that's why we disagree here.

@Aarvoll_ There is no such thing as an existential explanation; explanation is only a narrative device within a story that is already told. It doesn't go to identity. Hence my rejection of the initial premise: "complex reality", ie reality/what-is, does not have an explanation for itself.

@EuropeanAscent Premises are assertions, that's how syllogisms work. Any complex thing has parts and was composed of its parts in some way. Even atoms are complex and in fact, yes we try to explain how atoms came to be with their particular complexities.

@Aarvoll_ "A complex reality requires an explanation" You never supported this assertion. Also, do all realities require an explanation, or only sufficiently "complex" ones?

@Tweetophon If you have a complex thing, you can always explain how its parts came together in that particular way. That's why a complex reality requires explanation.

@Aarvoll_ Dead on arrival: "a complex reality requires an explanation". I've no clear idea of what you mean by that, nor how you could justify it. For my part reality is beyond mere "explanation". It is what it is, perfectly complete, necessary, and certain in its identity.

@HANGEDxMAN The idea is that only a certain kind of being can't have anything that came before it. Complex things have parts that are prior to themselves logically and temporal things are related to events that occurred beforehand. Only a simple, eternal being does not admit of any "before".

@Aarvoll_ It isn't satisfying though, because you enter into an infinite regress of "What then came before God?" which violates point 3 & 4. And if you deduce "it cannot be known" as a terminator, then you must acknowledge that this conclusion can also be reached at point 1.

@RuntimeTraveler When you have a handful of mechanical first principles, though, you'll ex hypothesi have no way to explain why that handful is the one we have not some other one. So it's still epistemologically unsatisfying.

@Aarvoll_ Complex principles can emerge from more simple principles. Maybe down to a handful. Completely mechanical. It is not what I believe, but I believe God can only stay invisible as long as he cannot be proven to be real.

@SerfdomEnjoyer Plato thought it was useful in the Laws to argue for God's existence. So maybe?

@Aarvoll_ I would want to quibble with each of these points individually, but are theological debates conducive to White solidarity?

@PhilixWelf Yeah it's the only necessarily inexplicable thing

@Aarvoll_ So your argument is that a cause in the limit of simplicity is effectively non-existent and therefore does not permit for explanation because explanation of pure simplicity would require a conceptualization that is disparately complex and therefore non-applicable?

@FairweatherBear That's why I lean gnostic in my Christianity, not a big Yahweh fan.

@Aarvoll_ There’s plenty of room to disagree or pick at this syllogism, but even if I granted you all of this (I do see its merits), I’m certain that YHWH is not god. He’s a psychopathic Jewish pagan national god and the Bible is full of contradictions and outright falsehoods.

@WLP_Was_Right Securities laws and discrimination in employment laws make that difficult for large businesses, but actually we probably could do it with a gas station.

@Aarvoll_ Could RTTL or other similar groups pool resources, purchase the local gas station business and run it?

@FindingHomeland I think you're halfway to Pythagoreanism, just keep going with that logic.

@Aarvoll_ If I were to address why those don't seem convincing to me, it is that physics seems to get simpler with each level, less arbitrary, and not being-shaped. One way to have complex (to humans) math be simple (truly) is if all other possibile maths self-contradict. My bet is there.

@WLP_Was_Right Agreed! And if you want all the details of how causal containment is supposed to work I'd point you to Proclus' Elements of Theology.

@Aarvoll_ This is still where the argument is most vulnerable and feels squishy. Anyway, let's just agree to boycott the Indians.

If we choose our worldview based on which one has the most epistemic merit, then epistemological arguments are important. Establishing that we ought to believe one theory above others doesn't entail that the ontology supposed by that theory is real, but it does help us navigate and order our theoretical landscape. So it matters even if it doesn't give us metaphysical certainty. I'm happy to offer more explicitly metaphysical arguments at a later time.

2. The correlation of oneness with goodness can be drawn empirically. When I am one I am doing well, when I am cut in half I am not doing as well. If I'm psychologically integrated and of one mind then I'm doing well, if I'm schizo and many I'm doing less well. Etc. 1. Consciousness is the oneness of many objects of experience. To be conscious is to bring many things together in one phenomenological representation. Things that participate of oneness participate of consciousness according to an Integrated Information Theory perspective. When something becomes more unific at the same time it becomes more conscious and better. So if the effects of oneness are goodness and consciousness then we can say that Oneness itself ought to contain that which it grants to other things in a more eminent degree.

@Aarvoll_ 1. Why would we assume this first cause was conscious, since if it was not conscious we would not consider it God 2. Why would this first cause be analogous to The Good?

@nestroydiggers1 But if an explanation is in terms of causes that make the thing such and not otherwise then a simple eternal substance that could not be otherwise has no explanation.

@Aarvoll_ Why does it have to be complex? The existence of any reality requires an explanation

The first cause of all the other numbers is 1. The number one contains potentially all the other numbers. I can just repeat, 1, and 1, and 1, etc., to get to every other natural number. The number one is an example of a simple first cause containing the principles of all the other members of its class.

@Aarvoll_ A simple first cause containing the principles of everything else... I'm not sure what that means. If you should explain it to a 5 year old, what would it be?

@CDismal16093 That is the weakest premise here, and an infinite chain of causes could coherently be viewed as a type of explanation. But I think any given infinite series still suffers from arbitrarity because we can never account for why a particular infinite series obtains and not another.

@Aarvoll_ Infinitism isn’t nearly as logically problematic as it’s made out to be