[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

[Krimel]
> Once more time with feeling: empty space IS empty space.
> It is that which is not-other than empty space. Empty space
> IS NOT nothing. Empty space IS not not-other than nothing.
>
> Within the spatial void ex nihilo nihil fit happens all the time
> spontaneously. The Big Bang can easily be conceived as an
> uncaused first cause that is neither absolute nor undifferentiated.
> It is the instant of the birth of spacetime. While the Big Bang is
> a "theory," it is supported by lots of evidence. It does accord
> with the universe as it is currently understood. It does make
> verifiable predications about future states. It serves all of the
> functions of your "Essence" without the quasi-religious overtones.

You can state a definition as many times and with all the feeling you want, 
but it won't make empty space become something.  This is really a silly 
argument that misses the point of "primary source" (i.e., genesis), as 
opposed to "first cause" (i.e., the start of temporality).

You speak of space and time as if they were inherent attributes of reality. 
Space/time is the dimensional mode of experience; temporality and extension 
frame the phenomena we experience as existents in a multiplicity universe. 
Existence is the appearance of finite objects and events in process.  This 
is an attribute of the self/other dichotomy, not reality; it's being-aware 
in the world.

Sure, your "Big Bang" theory is in "accord with the universe as it is 
understood" by Science.  But when a philosopher bases his ontogeny on 
Science, he forfeits any metaphysical theory he might otherwise have 
developed.  The birth of space/time occurs with our becoming aware as a 
cognizant organism.  The "big bang" that created you was an act performed by 
your parents, not a cataclysmic event that occurred 14 billion years ago. 
Likewise, creation is not a causal chain; it's the negated, actualized 
aspect of Essence experienced by an individuated subject.

Ex nihilo nihit fit is a logical principle that is central to all 
metaphysical hypothesis.  If you want to understand existence as a 
space/time system, become an astrophysicist or study the evolution of 
nature.  But don't preach scientism to a philosopher whose reality 
transcends the time and space of finite existence.

Essentially,
Ham