Science and religion are at they're worst when they become dogmatic in the truth. They become weaponized for control, be it, Anthony Fauci claiming to be the science, or believing your faith demands you kill.

But both are utilities for good, if they persistently lead you to wonder.

Without religion, science may not have been discovered ( as in the method to question it all).

Without science, religion would purely be dogmatic, rather than expanded to find wonder in more.

I agree that an ideology fettered in absolutism is a problem—except free-speech—but my point isn't about what is right or wrong individually.

It's about why all arguments disagree fundamentally, yet all struggle with the same fault.

They all assume there was a beginning.

We all assume a beginning must have happened, but I'm trying to suggest that must be an assumption overlooked and obviously wrong.

To assume everything came to be with a start point, means agreement can never be found.

But if existence always is, there is no need to disagree on how everything begun.

For all things to come from nothing, something must exist: as nothing has no meaning unless it has something to be without.

Existence can't have a beginning to explain how it came to be. Existence just has to be, as it can't be any other way.

I'm currently reading, "the psychology of totalitarianism", the author suggests that much social anxiety is created from our inability to be confident in what we try to express with each 9ther.

Words are an expression of what we think, but if we each assume different meanings from words without knowing, how can we be sure of anything?

I understand the cosmological argument to mean, how the universe begun.

The ontological argument is about the nature of being.

I am guilty of confusing the 2, but can they be separated?

Can anything exist if it has no witness?

Is there a cosmological argument without an ontological one first?

It stands to reason, all things must exist if only to oppose non existence.

All truth resonates out of hypocrisy.

I really can't say if those suggestions are good or not.

I'm half black and half white and found those books very helpful.

If I could suggest some other books that I believe really helped me....

Up from slavery by Booker at Washington. I was Transformed, about Frederick Douglas. Rich Dad poor Dad, by Robert Kywasaki(can't spell his name). And Think rich grow rich, by napoleon Hill.

If I read those books as a young man, my life would have been much different.

Think rich grow rich, might arguably be a fraud, but the underlying message is sound. "You only fail if you quit."

If you never give up, you will succeed, the best message you can ever instill in anyone. Every champion is made from it.

I don't think we disagree, I think I failed in my explanation.

I would never be so bold as to claim, "God is dead." Or that metaphysics suffer death either.

I see the conception of irrational as something of a burden.

That which cannot fit reason, evades all our calculations in search for reason.

It is the very disregard of irrationality that clouds our basis for questioning.

If every line of questioning leads us to an impossible conclusion, perhaps we are poisoning our reason with faulty data.

To assume shadows must be cast by figures without clear evidence, apriori stands to reason.

Why? We must have prior understanding of light, shadow, figures etc.

I'm not questioning that which stands to reason; I'm suggesting that we are assuming reason from a fundamental factor never questioned.

Is the assumption of a start to all, backed by any evidence other than anecdotal—we started therefore the universe did—or the fact we subjectively have only known existence, proof existence is all that exists.

Unless we can end our existence to prove we can't exist, then return to existence and declare, "ah ha!" Is it not sound to assume existence is the norm?

The endless search to discover how or why the universe begun, is like shining light on the dark to prove the dark doesn't exist.

Nothing cannot exist unless something exists.

To assume the universe, or God started it all, is a failure to grasp the irrational truth of rationale.

I've only recently started reading Nietzsche. I have so much more to read. The more I seem to open my eyes to, the more I realise I am blind to.

This hypocrisy is abundant in everything. As I struggle through Nietzsche's beyond good and evil, he seems to highlight the truth in this phenomena.

Assumption in what must be true, distracts us from real truth.

Truth hides between desire and illusion.

The little I've read of Nietzsche so far, I definitely feel less anxious in life.

To chase the idea of infinity, we must start at 0 and progress forever. All science and mathematics I'd imagine is based in line with that.

If you chase a finite result, you need a start figure to provide an answer.

Infinity assumes no end.

The finite must end.

Both the infinite and the finite exist in the minds of the living.

All life lives in the living.

We subjectly can only know the living.

The dead doesn't subjectively exist.

Life only can exist in you, the you right now reading this.

There is no other than you.

There is no you, without I.

Without the living nothing can ever exist, therefore existence is the only thing we can ever be sure is real.

Nietzsche is most high level in my limited experience. I find him so difficult to follow, I find meaning I'm not confident I was meant to.

Sam Harris's short book on free will provides good food for thought. (I wouldn't flirt with any of his recent stuff, if any though.)

Jordan Petersons 12 rules for life, is a decent book for young males.

Books from Plato, Kant, Nietzsche etc, I'd suggest should be side books slowly read before bed: for everyone, especially the young.

If I had parents that showed an interest in my reading, I'd desire they provided me logical rational thinkers on observed truth, instead of metaphysical hypothetical thinkers, if you will.

First learn how to think rationally, before tangling in the abstract.

The question is: how can we determine rational thought?

I'm new to this group, so I'm yet to see the personality of responses, however in my opinion, determining rational thought isn't difficult.

If you can state your belief, don't require majority support, don't need to silence the opposition, and are happy to change your mind in light of facts, you are thinking rationally.

The shared problem for all ontological arguments are their implicitly assumed premise.

Whether theistic or atheistic, the premise of all ideologies regarding the nature of existence, all share the assumption of a beginning. This shared assumption of a caused beginning ensures an endless regression and eternal opposition.

Attempting to rationalise the irrational can only strengthen disagreements; meaning the most irrational thing one can do, is to try find rationale in the irrational. Does it not make more sense to, build rationale out of the agreed irrationality?

I'm hyper-aware this may seem like a word-salad attempt at profundity, so I'll provide a direct example of what I mean.

Theists believe God started everything, but can never explain that which made God. We must suddenly cease further explanations.

Science provides theories of a beginning, then seeks to answer how, which seeks how, which seeks how, into infinity, which quietly admits also, there can be no satisfactory answer.

Both methods of thinking, result in irrationality from a place of seeking rationale.

If one starts from a place of irrationality this problem is avoided.

Because we assume it rational that all things have a beginning, the nature of being will never make sense.

Is it rational to assume things must begin? Is it rational to assume everything came from nothing?

How can nothing even exist unless it can be compared to something?

Instead of something coming from nothing, maybe nothing can only exist out of something.

Instead of things beginning only to end, maybe things can only end because the nature of being is to exist.

No beginning argument into infinity is required if something is the default position instead of nothing.

I hope I made sense. Much wiser folk may have already debunked or raised this concept. I hope I didn't break any posting etiquette. Merry Xmas.