The absolute absurdity of God

[pocaracas]

Could you point me towards the current preferred one, then?

The best, most sound mathematical and physical models of the universe do not posit an etneral universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

That applies to the Universe. I'm going beyond the Universe, in case I haven't made it obvious.
Beyond the Universe, out of the Universe.
Models exist that posit that spacetime could be in existence in the absence of the Universe and that this spacetime is responsible for somehow generating the Universe.

Much like the explanation of 'god'. The basic necessary framework upon which everything else exists.


What do you mean?... spacetime necessarily exists.

Besides, I think metaphysics fails upon introspection. What came first, metaphysics or human reasoning? (I lean towards the latter)

Anything with a beginning does not exist necessarily (as in could not have failed to exist). Nothing material exists necessarily because it runs into the logical impossibility of a series of past infinite events. 

Again, spacetime is like a coordinate system, it's not something that begins, it's everywhere where the concept of location and time make sense. It is the essence of these concepts.
Material, energy and mass, exist in spacetime. Spacetime is the framework upon which everything material exists.

Still, remarkably, spacetime can produce materials in vacuum.

Metaphysical possibilities came before human reasoning. 

So says you.
I see metaphysics as a collection of generalizations from our pattern seeking reasoning brains, hence why I lean to human reasoning having come first.
How do you reason that things go according to your order?

Did you fail to read what I wrote?
For our Universe, what you say seems evident enough...however, our Universe is just a blip in the infinite vastness of the infinite spacetime. Sure, this Universe occupies some part of spacetime, but not all... the temporal part can extend to infinity past, even if no event happens within that part.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is a distinct possibility, if you think about spacetime as a single thing, a single framework upon which things exist and happen.
When you have a circle drawn on a 2D axis, that axis is infinite, but you only have things in it contained on the location where the circle is. And time in spacetime is equivalent to one of the dimensions on that axis.

Anything material has some sort of subatomic/quantum events--for which a past infinite series is logically impossible. Are you saying these other "parts" are immaterial? 

Spacetime is immaterial, yes, that's what I'm saying. It is also atemporal, though it provides the framework upon which everything can have a temporal coordinate.

You are describing a metaphysical concept--not anything remotely connected to reality. My argument deals with what we know and what can be known. A possible defeater to any of the premises is not enough because the premises are measured on the "more likely than not" scale in order to be successful in an inductive argument. Nothing you propose remotely qualifies for "more likely than not". 

Don't you wonder about the biases that went into determining that likelihood?

I don't remember saying that your beliefs are irrational.
I think they're wrong, as they imply the existence of a thing so far removed from reality that they may seem irrational to someone who simple extrapolates from the reality presented - Like I said before, more organized things arising from less organized ones.

To characterize the universe as "more organized" is an incredible understatment. We can turn to the fine-tuning argument to see that the chances of the initial conditions being such that life is possible have more zeros to the right of the decimal than there are elements in the universe.

Really? fine tuning?... yawn...