Here’s a Fun Fact…

So in an environment where we conclusively demonstrate that Atheists not only cannot provide any analytical data or logic for their A-religious, Voidist position, an environment where theist analytical reasoning and logic and evidence has been provided for their analysis, a person shows up with “evidence” that theist reasoning is “intuitive” (code for “gave the wrong answer”), and Atheist (non-religious) reasoning is analytical (“gave the right answer”).

That evidence is a single question on algebra.

The lesson might be, although claimed not to be, that theists are easily fooled, i.e. not all that bright. Atheists, the lesson might be, although claimed not to be, get it right because they are bright enough to analyze things.

Fun fact:

Analysis involves searching for and isolating all possible reasons, factors and evidence which substantiate an hypothesis, while also enumerating all possible reasons, factors and evidence which might disprove the hypothesis, and then providing unquestionable refutation for all possible challenges to the hypothesis, before making any declarations about the results or quality of the hypothesis. To be called science, it must be a controlled experiment, replicated successfully, falsifiable and not falsified, objectively peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal. For human trials there must be control groups and double blinds and other objectivity-preserving cautions taken, including all of the myriad possible complicating issues being successfully normalized. Causation must be demonstrated rather than correlation.

Serendipitously, Atheists have charged FORWARD (thanks Barack) into the closet, denying that they even have an hypothesis to substantiate. This is in response to the request that they provide analytical evidence for their position of rejecting either the existence of a non-physical agent, or rejecting the hypothesis cum deduction indicating that hypothesis to be rationally acceptable. The dash for the closet is a better indicator of the rational, analytical powers of Atheists than the answer to a single algebra question, because it is a specific response by a specific group to a specific issue which provides differentiation of the actual issue, whereas algebra is not an issue in either religion or Atheism, much less a differentiator.

Since Atheism has abandoned its claim to logic and evidence as the basis for its worldview, it seems odd to claim that non-religionists are more analytical, unless of course that means being mentally totally material-oriented and with limited or no mental capacities otherwise. The idea that knowledge stops at math/science is a limitation which directs focus away from rational principles, which works like this: Materialism is all there is because: shut up.

Why Atheism is Rationally Deniable and a Non-Physical Agent is Rationally Acceptable

In a conversation here I allowed myself to be seduced into sharing my own reasoning regarding the probability of Atheism being valid on the one hand, and the probability of there being more than material existence in the form of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. This is outside the purpose of this blog, and it led directly into the usual sorts of Atheist dissembly and radical skepticism which ultimately brought the conversation to a screeching halt. I say seduced because I know full well that Atheists do not want a path to truth (there is no truth except Atheism); what they want is justification for their beliefs, regardless of how that is accomplished.

But just to get it into one place and let it be read and urinated upon in the standard fashion, here is my side of the conversation where I marched through my reasoning, which I will give a title despite its not being an edited article:


Why Atheism is Rationally Deniable and a Non-Physical Agent is Rationally Acceptable

You might not have expected an answer of this nature, but I have found that “knowledge” (if we can call it that) regarding a proposed deity requires an examination of one’s personal views on the most basic human interactions with that which he considers to be “real”. In order for us to communicate with meanings which we hold in common, I need to explain my own understandings and how they are derived. Even words such as “real” hold baggage of underlying philosophical constructs. ( I now use words such as “actual” rather than “real”).

For example, if a person insists that there can be only our universal existence, then according to this theory no proposed thing is real or can actually exist if it does not consist of mass/energy within space/time. This is Philosophical Materialism. It is a philosophical construct which places limitations on the idea of what is “real”. The implications are that existence is mass/energy only (by definition), and that knowledge comes only from evidence which is mass/energy and derived by empirical experimentation.

But Philosophical Materialism cannot produce, ever, evidence consisting of mass/energy which demonstrates that its foundational principle is either true or valid. (True and valid are different concepts in rigorous logic). So Philosophical Materialism is based on a claim which it cannot prove, using its own prescription of truth and reality. Making an immutable knowledge claim on the limits of “reality” which cannot be proven under its own requirements is both false and intellectually sloppy, unless the intent is to protect a related dogma, and then it is intellectually dishonest.

Because Philosophical Materialism cannot be accepted as an immutable fact of existence, then we are in a position of trying to evaluate what can be reasonably known and justified well enough to accept it as knowledge.

There are several issues that arise simultaneously. How do we know (are there process limitations)? What can we know (are there access limitations)? How does information qualify to be considered knowledge (are there acceptable justification procedures)?


How do we know?

There are (at least) two conflicting theories:
1. Knowledge comes only through perception. We can know only that which we can perceive. (empirical knowledge)

2 We can know that which we can deduce. (principles of hypothetical deductive logic).

What can we know?

There are three possible sources of information which might become knowledge:

1. sensory: e.g. empirical and information transfer. (material: mass/energy).

2. introspective: e.g. mathematical derivation and philosophical enquiry. (non-material).

3. genetic: e.g. heritable capabilities of the intellect: apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, comprehension. I.e., we “know” how to manipulate sensory and introspective inputs into cogent meanings, and to interpret those meanings.

Objections to knowledge certainty; mutability:

Because sensory knowledge is susceptible to error, it cannot be immutable.

Because empirical knowledge is susceptible to the Induction Fallacy, it cannot be immutable.

Because information transfer is susceptible to noise and transmission error, it cannot be immutable.

Because introspection is susceptible to error, it cannot be immutable.

So, what we think we know is not immutable, it is probabilistic. Because it is probabilistic, it is subject to calculation based on evidence, based on the rules of probability. If an hypothesis is not based on randomness (coin toss), then it is based on evidence:

p [H(X) | e(X)] ~ 0 < n < 1. Which reads, the probability of an hypothesis, H, concerning an issue, X, given evidence, e, regarding X, approximates 0 < n < 1. A subject with no possibility of evidence cannot be known, even probabilistically (except to be called 0.5 as in a coin toss). But this is dependent upon how “evidence” is defined. So we will need an Evidentiary Theory. Again the purpose of this long preamble to the answer to your question is to establish whether we can agree on what the process is for determining the “rational acceptability” of a proposition, even if there is no certitude attached to it. To expand just a little, there are at least three options to consider when dealing with a new proposition: (a) Rational acceptability: can a proposition be accepted despite lacking complete certainty; if so, what criteria must it meet? (b) Rational deniability: can a proposition be denied rationally, and if so, what criteria must be used to judge failure? (c) Skeptical deniability: any proposition can be denied using a sliding scale of certainty requirements, a scale which regresses to include even axioms (a la Nietzsche). [The reader says]: ”YOU said that you now use words such as “actual” rather than “real”. Can you explain what you mean by that? More importantly, there is a common definition for what the word 'real' means; in its simplest form it contrasts with imaginary. Things that are real thus exist in reality, while things that are not real do not exist in reality; they can still exist in the form of imaginary things. What's wrong with that usage according to you? Is actuality encompassing all that exists, both real and imaginary? Am I too restrictive already by saying that things are either real OR imaginary?”

You have identified the problem with using the term “real” in a discussion which centers around the issue of physical and non-physical; the unspoken tendency is to consider that physical is tautological with real, and non-physical is tautological with imaginary. This makes the conversation impossible due to definitional problems. If one party considers it to be a truth statement that physical is the same as real and non-physical to be imaginary-only, then there remains nothing to discuss.

The use of “actual” or “actuality” is intended to relieve the confusion of statements such as “non-physical things can’t be real because only real things are real”. By comparison one can say that “non-physical things might be actual even though they are not physical”.




The following is terse based on the assumption that because it is basic and simple, it might be an insult to elaborate excessively.

Evidentiary Theory

1. Axioms.
Axioms are based on empirical observations which are verified by Reductio Ad Absurdum, i.e. seeing that the contradictory is not the case. While axioms are also probabilistic, they are of a probability which is high enough to be considered “true”.

For example, we can observe that an object cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. If we test this using the contradictory – that objects can both exist and not exist at the same time – how would the universe be if that converse were actually the case?

We can conclude that the principle is the case and that the contradictory is not the case, and that the probability of that is very high. We can use this principle in judging the validity of other propositions. It is thus an axiom.

There are three axioms called the “Laws of Thought” which are found in logic textbooks and which also were derived mathematically by Boole (”An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, On Which Are Founded The Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probability”, George Boole, 1853).

(a). The Principle of Identity/Tautology.

(b). The Principle of Non-Contradiction.

(c). The Principle of Excluded Middle.

There are other axioms, such as Cause and Effect, and together these axioms are foundational for intellectual enterprises such as logic, science, and mathematics.

2. Material Evidence

(a) Induction of observations into sets.

(b) Deduction of subset from set (hypothesis, experiment, data, interpretation, conclusion, replication).

(c) Falsifiability: the demarcation of the boundary between experimentally differentiable subjects, and those subjects not differentiable experimentally (Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1935).


3. Non-Material Evidence

(a) Subset deduction:

(IF [set K], THEN [subset k])

(b) Deductive extrapolation:

(IF [it happened here on earth], THEN [it might have happened on other similar planets]).

(c) Axiomatic validation:

IF [H(X) & axiom Y], THEN [H(X) conforms to Y].

IF [H(X) & (Law Z(X), based on axiom Y)], THEN [H(X) conforms to Law Z and axiom Y].

Again, this is terse and might require discussion.




[Reason for using “actual” rather than “real”]:

If the top sets are Possible and Not Possible,

And the subsets of Possible are Actual and Not Actual,

Then pink unicorns (the fantasy animal, as in living creature) are Not Possible (although not 100%: more on this to come).

Possible and Actual might include terabite disks in PCs, while Possible but Not Actual might include 100 terabite disks in PCs (yet to come).




There could be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of initial conditions and working rules. We have ours, which we can know, and the principles of which are reliable at the macro level. Logic is based on observation of the conditions of existence in our universe, and consists of stable, uncontroverted principles (so far). So the principles of logic are man-made, and are based on observations of the functioning of the universe, so they are observations of natural principles.

Here are the next principles:

The inductive fallacy: induction of information into sets is commonly used to define “laws” concerning the sets. However, it cannot be said that the law is immutably True, because not all of any set of observations is complete, and some future observation might defy the original law. The standard example is the White Swan observation. At one point in time it could be said, inductively, that because every swan observed was white, that ALL swans are white (a rule or law), based on the large sample size which were observed. However, when Australia was discovered, black swans were found, and that discovery falsified the inductively determined law saying that all swans are white.

Induction can produce convincing data, but it can never be at p = 1.0.

This carries over directly into deduction, which starts with a “law” or set, and deduces a subset.

So neither induction nor deduction can produce immutable Truth. However, as you point out, very high probability can definitely be considered to confer rational acceptability of a proposition. And that is where we are headed.




First, Axiomatic Validation:

Any proposition can be validated (within the limits of inductive understanding) by the use of Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA). If we take the contrary to an argument or proposition, and compare it to our understanding of universal actualities (the way the universe actually works), then if the contrary matches universal actualities, the argument is false; however, if the contrary does not match universal actualities ( is absurd) then the argument is valid.

Example: the contrary of the Principle of Non-Contradiction would be that in our universe an entity could both exist and not exist, simultaneously, and that a proposition could be both true and false, simultaneously. Because we do not observe this contrary, then the Principle of Non-Contradiction is rationally acceptable (within the constraints of the inductive fallacy).

Next, a little probability review:

If m = the total number of samples observed, including the next observation,

And,

If n = the number of successful or “true” observations seen in the past,

Then, p = n/m.

Because n is always smaller than m, p cannot be 1.0. In order to be 1.0, the observer must be prescient in order to know that the next, yet to be performed, observation is successful or “true”. Barring prescience, only tautology would allow p = 1.0.




OK. We now have the tools necessary for approaching hypothetical probabilities.

First let’s take the standard Atheist hypothesis:

“there is no deity”.

Reminding ourselves that probability calculations depend on prior evidence (unless random):

p [ H(X) | e(X)] = e(Xknown) / e(Xtotal)

Since a deity would exist in a non-physical realm, it is necessary to consider evidence which is gathered in that realm only, in order to avoid a Category Error. Since Atheists cannot gather evidence in the non-material realm, then no matter how many attempts they make, e(Xknown) is 0 (zero), and e(Xtotal) is the number of attempts, Nattempts:

p = (0) / Nattempts = 0.

Discussion:
What sort of non-physical evidence exists which would be necessary and sufficient to create a high probability that “there is no deity”? It would be necessary to have the ability to investigate the non-physical realm, to explore it completely in order to miss nothing, and it would be necessary to have the ability to adequately share that investigation evidence with others who would replicate the investigation. Neither is possible.

Given that there can be no physical or objective evidence concerning the non-physical existence of a deity, then the hypothesis itself is without meaning, at least evidentiarily. Hypotheses without any mechanism for verification or validation are without meaning, except as unsubstantiable opinion. So the standard Atheist hypothesis is no more than an opinion and is unsubstantiable.

Objections:
For that reason some Atheists have changed the hypothesis to be something like the following:

“There is no evidence for a deity, and the burden of proof is on the claimant”.

This is an attempt at an intellectual dodge, a deception which ignores the burden of proof for their actual claim that there is no deity. Even this new hypothesis is without meaning due to having the same evidentiary issues outlined above, and the general retreat to the Category Error.

These Atheists then claim that any personal experience is not acceptable evidence, and that if a deity exists, it must be shown to exist using evidence which can be examined and verified by any and everyone, i.e. resolving to physical evidence which is transferrable between parties (the Category Error).

Conclusion:
It is rationally acceptable to reject the Atheist hypotheses, based first on probability and second, based on logical error in the proposition.

However, this is only the general statement of the Atheist hypothesis; there are other specific Atheist claims which can be similarly analyzed (later).





Now let’s examine the basic claim for agent-causation of the universe.

The hypothesis for an existence which is outside and beyond mass / energy is this:

Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.

Part 2. The initiation of the existence of the universe was not random; was not accidental; was not self-initiated, was not spontaneous.

(a) Not random: we do not observe universes randomly popping into existence.

(b) Not accidental: an accident implies an agent which has lost control.

(c) Not self-initiated: first there is no evidence that self-initiation could have occurred, much less that it did occur; second, we observe no universes self-initiating themselves (we have actual evidence of only one universe, occurring just once).

(d) Not spontaneously initiated: Spontaneous universes are not observed to be popping into existence.

Part 3. The universe was externally caused to exist, and operates on a consistent rule-based basis, even though derived from probabilistic foundations.

Part 4. The cause for the existence of the universe was prior to mass / energy, in other words, was non-physical.

Part 5. The cause was capable of producing the effect (powerful enough to create the effect).

Part 6. The cause was as ordered as the effect.

Part 7. An action which is not random, accidental, self-initiated or spontaneous can reasonably be considered to be purposeful, i.e. agent caused and intentional.


Possible Objections:

(a) Cause and Effect applies only in the frame work of time; the cause must pre-exist the effect.

Contrary: Existing before the start of time is a pre-existence which satisfies the conditions for causality.

(b) The “orderliness of the universe” exists only in our minds, which adapted to this particular universe’s particular behavior, which we see as orderly.

Contrary: If our minds are not orderly, then rationality is not possible and delusion is inherent in all perceptions. The claim that “order is not real” results in logic not being real, which is either a self-defeating, paradoxical claim, or an admission of delusion.




(c) There is no reason to think that the universe’s initiation was not random.

Contrary: No other random universes are popping into existence on a random scale or timeframe.

(d) There might be a natural cause, not yet found.

Contrary: The term “natural” refers to mass / energy existence; there was no natural existence which we know of, or can know of, which existed at the time of, or prior to, the creation of mass / energy. This claim is Scientistic, and without any basis in fact, or substance in logic.

(e) There might be an infinite number of parallel universes, of which ours is only one example.

Contrary: There is no evidence to support this conjecture. Even so, it is possible to create other conjectures such as that some other universes are not physical in nature (being without mass / energy), and might contain non-physical entities which have capabilities outside our abilities to comprehend, and which might be coincident with our universe without our ability to detect them.

Probability:
Since the contraries sufficiently refute the Objections to the hypotheses, and since no data can be taken to support or refute, then the hypotheses regarding agent causation of the universe are rationally acceptable.


The Probability of Producing a Material Effect with a Non-Material Cause:

Evidence of the human mind producing physical changes is everywhere, and has been for millennia. Let’s consider 10 trillion observations:

p [ Non-material cause & Material effect is valid] ~ [(trillions – 1) / trillions] ~ 0.9999999999999 (for 10 trilllion observations).

Objection: There are no cases of non-material causes for material events.

Contrary: When one decides to lift an arm and then does so, it is a case of a non-material cause producing a material effect. There is no initiating material cause, although there are intermediate material cause/effects involved.

Objection: The mind is material.

Contrary: All Material entities are mass, containing energy either kinetic or potential. The mind is not mass and is not a physical lump removable from the brain. Meaning has no mass. Logic has no mass. Decisions have no mass. Experiencing qualia has no mass. Concepts and concept creation have no mass. None of these can be removed as physical lumps from the brain. Also, the mind is not deterministic; mass is deterministic.

Conclusion: The concept of non-material cause / material effect is rationally acceptable.




According to Stephen Hawking (2010) the universe started as just rules, like the law of gravity, and/or the equation collapse of a rule similar to that of Schrodinger’s equation collapse in quantum theory, except on a huge scale. Those are non-mass / energy entities and are non-physical.

Some theories include that of the singularity, in which the entire universe was contained in a dimensionless point (per Brian Greene, 2004); if that were the case, then the mass components could not have existed as mass, but would have to have been something other than mass, ergo, non-material or non-physical per the understanding of the words material and physical.

I am not aware of any current physics theory that posits the pre-existence of mass before the Big Bang, but perhaps you know of one / some?

As far as the question “how do you know?” the answer is that we are establishing here a basis for knowledge which is rationally acceptable, not one which is empirically demonstrated, experimentally, replicably, falsifiably, because the empirical method applies only to material subjects which can be tested, and which could be subsequently refuted. The origin of the universe is a demonstration case for the point of opacity for empirical science, the limit beyond which current and foreseeable empiricism is blind.



Perhaps this would be an opportune point at which to discuss the limits of deductive logic. It is possible to deduce conclusions which, even though they are not knowable empirically, those conclusions – properly framed and grounded – are rationally acceptable. However, they can take us only so far, because at some point there will be a multiplication of deductions which starts to lose its accuracy. In other words, there is a danger of basing new inductions on older deductions, and starting a chain, an infinite regression, which at some point loses its probable truth value.

So the limit, my own limit, is one level of deduction. This limits the process to deism.

Theism is by definition a personal experience, initiated subjectively, fulfilled by the creating entity at its leisure, and is neither deducible nor is it refutable, including by means of empiricism. It is common for Atheists to claim that such an experience is delusion; however, that claim is skeptical deniability, and is without evidentiary support, so is not rationally acceptable.

So we are at a point where we can say that it is rationally acceptable to consider that (a) there is a high probability for the existence of a creating agent, (b) one with powers and abilities sufficient to have created (c) the universe, (d) the rules governing it, and (e) all the contents of the universe, including (f) the characteristics of those contents.

[Further, the contrary to each of the above is not rationally acceptable, either by the use of current science, the non-existence of supporting empirical evidence, or logic which is non-pyrrhonian in nature.]

Beyond that, I have no rational (deductive) evidence to provide which is not subjective in nature.



[A reminder]:
The purpose of this comment chain and for the blog itself is to demonstrate that the Atheist contention that there is no creating agent cannot be demonstrated, either physically or logically.

The intent is not to "prove there is a God". The intent is to show that Atheists, under their own system of understanding, cannot demonstrate, much less prove, that there is no creating agent. Further, their own system of understanding is both limited, probabilistic, contingent, and religiously held, to the exclusion of any other sources of understanding. Further still, they use other sources of understanding which they deny exist.




OK, then. Re: Part 1:

We should define our terminology. Remember that this discussion is about knowledge; the physical view of knowledge is empiricism, which requires observation and experimentation. Inability to observe and experiment crosses the Popper demarcation boundary for empirical knowledge. Lacking the ability to generate empirical knowledge of an entity or event renders it beyond physical knowledge, i.e. non-physical.

Physical / material: being composed of mass/energy in the context of space/time.

Non-physical / non-material: not being composed of mass/energy in the context of space/time.

A “non-“ statement is defined by what it is not, not by what it is. For example, the set [!X] includes everything which is not definitively X. Whether it is [Y] or [Q] or [H & Z] is not the point. The point is that it is not [X].

So the burden of proof is not on me to prove that something is non-material, it is on the challenger to prove that it is, in fact, material.

A large part of QM is the troubling aspect of the non-materiality of non-decohered probability waves. The concepts of QM include that the particle is not actual until it decoheres (loses some of its probabilism due to entanglement with the environment: entropy, due to observation for example). Going back to the Copenhagen understanding, the “particle” is actually a probability wave existing in a quantum field; it does not materialize until observed (Einstein denounced this, but finally accepted it). One decohering event is the observation which entangles and decoheres the probability wave.

The probability wave for a single particle encompasses the entire universe, and that encouraged Feynman to declare that the “particle” traversed all of the possible paths in the universe, in order to get to its final destination. He expressed this as a path integral including all possible paths which the particle could take. This is an analog of the all-pervasive probability wave.

(Feynman also said that if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, then you don’t).

As for something coming from nothing, that is not a posit of either classical mechanics or QM. The posit is this: When a matter/antimatter pair appear, it is due to a local decoherence of their quantum probability wave, which permeates all of space. The local decoherence occurs due to noise in the quantum wave. In fact, if something is ever found which pops into existence from exactly nothing, then it will violate cause and effect, and all science will be suspect due to the apparent falsification of cause and effect.

OK, let’s back up and discuss exactly what we are trying to talk about here. There are several cosmological theories at the moment:





(a) The original Big Bang, occurring from a dimensionless point containing mass/energy and space/time;

(b) The Guth inflationary theory, for which the original exponential expansion was more rapid than could be accounted for considering gravity, but then gravity was determined mathematically to have a negative, repulsive force for very small and very large dimensions. But the origin before planck time is still not understood; thought to be a dimensionless point. Also not explained is why the point would have come into existence if negative gravity were present.

(c) The String Theory I which claims a minimum dimension of one planck length 10^-33 cm. for aggregation. This posits planck-sized “nuggets” floating around waiting to be jogged into universes. The inflationary theory is still used for (t= 0+) > (planck times)> (t=10^-43 sec).

(d) String Theory II, which Lee Smolin posits to be universes spawned by black holes in prior universes; the black hole at the center of our own galaxy would be the mother of another universe at the back side of the black hole, a universe which is invisible to us due to the event horizon of the black hole. The original universe, the one which started the chain of universes, is unknown, and possibly the chain is infinite. This doesn’t appear to answer the issue of negative gravity requirements, either, because black holes exist due to positive gravity – negative gravity would seem to cause them to explode back into the host universe.

(e) Other miscellaneous, lesser accepted theories.

First, none of these theories is directly observable using material techniques, and cannot fall under the ageis of empirical knowledge; the boundary for empiricism is at the light horizon of black holes, and that would be the same for the original expansion of the universe when we look back in time.

None of these explains the state of existence or origin of the proposed planck nugget, and because the dimensions of space/time are wrapped into planck length also, there is no material way in which to measure or judge it. In fact, the status of the space/time dimensions is thought to become non-coherent, possibly existing only as a “foam” (the analog for matter, the Bose-Einstein foam, has been produced at temperatures just above absolute zero).

So, there is no reason to presume that the existence within the planck nugget is the same or even similar to the existence which we term “physical” and which consists of well-defined atomic and molecular existences, especially those which are stable enough to be subjected to empirical knowledge extraction. If they are actually merely probability waves compacted into near zero space, they are non-physical. No matter what they actually are compositionally, they are non-empirical in terms of knowledge.

The example, of course, is within Quantum Theory where particles do not exist except as probability waves until they decohere, a demonstration of a non-physical existence in terms of empirical knowledge.




A quick re-read shows an error:

(d) should read:

The inflationary theory is still used for (t= 0+) < (planck times) < (t=10^-43 sec).

(arrows were reversed).





[…a response to rejection of “non-physical” concepts, and proposal of “spontaneous” occurrence of universes from nothing for no reason]:

Why would it be reasonable to assume that the entire universe exists as the same mass/energy existence we know, when it is all in a "nugget" sized 10^-33cm? Including space-time, of course.


Now, spontaneity:
First, Spontaneous means without control or reason. It means that there is no restriction on its occurrence, no limiting principle. If a truly spontaneous function existed, it would be expected to occur everywhere, all the time.

Since it does not occur everywhere, all the time, then there is some limiting principle, and it is not spontaneous.

Second, there is no space-time posited outside the universe; spontaneity is conceptually time-related.

Third, it is not observed, ever; we must accept a proposition claiming materialism without any material evidence, and without rational cause except to support a worldview/ideology.

I should be more explicit here. This thread has been about knowledge, and what we can consider to be rationally acceptable as knowledge vs. what is rationally deniable, and finally differentiating those considerations from skeptical denialism.

Skeptical denialism is rejection based on the insistence for being given absolute proof of the truth value of a given proposition. Since there is nothing which is 100% knowable under the extremist attack of pyrrhonism/solipsism, then probability comes into play for every proposition.

Probability is based on evidence, which is based on observation (unless the event is truly random). Probability is a deduction of likelihood.

The issue is: what is considered rationally acceptable when considering the origin of the universe, rather than absolute knowledge of the composition of the universe when it was compressed into a planck sized nugget.

What we know with acceptable probability is that the elements of the periodic table did not exist, nor did their components. We also know with acceptable probability that empirical, direct observation of the planck nugget by humans is not likely.

So the question becomes, what can we rationally accept as being likely, if anything? If it is posited that we can know nothing, then that needs justification. The posit here is that we can know with rational acceptability based on current science, that the material existence which we probe empirically today and which is based on elements in the periodic table did not exist within the planck-sized nugget. Nor did the sub-atomic particles exist. If we claim that they physically existed, merely in some other form, then we have stretched the meaning of “physical” beyond its normal bounds, and we have done so in order to preserve an ideology, rather than in order to search for actual facts: there are no facts to be had, only deductions of what is likely or not likely.