No other logical alternative. There is no source, since to be a source is to be and therefore to exist, but existence's source can not exist before existence itself.
It is not that something was possible. It is rather that something has existed since the beginning. There was never a moment where something didn't exist.
Let's dive deeper. If you want to say that something trancendes existence, you must first understand and delineate what is that which is...
Exactly. Therefore... ?
It is not that we can not comprehend it. Let me put it this way: Consider there is an object Z that has the property A but not property B. It is of object's Z essence to have property A and not to have property B. Consider also that property B is identical to property A...
First of all, you are presuming that something came out of nothing when you say that ( "[...]to make something possible from the abject impossibility of nothingness")
which is not what I am proposing. Existence didn't come out from (the abject impossibility of) nothingness. Existence didn't come...
Not at all. Since nothingness didn't exist before existence, it is not something from nothing. Also not an argument from ignorance, it is simply the only viable alternartive.
There can be no such thing as a transcendent source that transcends existence itself. Let me put it this way: What does...
I agree that it is not logically possible for existence to come out of nothingness.
There is a 3rd alternative: Existence has a finite past and didn't come out of anything (including nothingness). It is rather uncaused, for it makes no sense to talk about anything preceding existence.
It is...
To put it simple: The idea in the OP is that knowledge/evidence is unnecessary to make true statements, and that wisdom suffices. It is, therefore, possible to make statements out of wisdom (such as 'God exists') without the need to provide evidence (since evidence is within the realm of...
But where did those definitions come from?
It is not impossible to have capitalism in an anarchy, just extremely unlikely.
Communists are anarchists and collectivists at the same time.
On what grounds?
Libertarianism is classical liberalism taken to an extreme.
Socialism is about public...
If anyone can assert anything out of a self-proclaimed wisdom, how is this wisdom the currency of truth when two people can be asserting two completely opposite things that could not be true at the same time?
As per the OP: "Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble...