“To deny that the universe began to exist puts you in the ‘anti-realist’ situation ...”
I have no idea what this means. I’m not a realist, if that means some kind of Platonic realism, and not a realist, it it means buying every self-styled “scientists” whose guesses are “widely accepted,” as if that had anything to do with truth.
My “realism” is this. Existence exists and is what it is, whether anyone knows what it is or not. It’s nature must be discovered, not guessed at to explain what has been observed. That is not science or knowledge.
“The most plausible explanation ...”
Plauibility is not science, it is guesswork. It might be right, but it might not. No one is obliged to explain anything in terms of someone else’s guesswork.
Aristotle’s views of causation were wrong (though infinitely superior to that of hume), nevertheless it is Hume’s view of causation that has informed all philosophy since he wrote his vile skeptic philosophy.
You rest all your arguments on lots of authority. For the sake of making future discussion easier, understand, I accept no authorities in any field, and learn from others only what I can fully understand using my best reason and discover to be true.
Hank
It appears that you have not straightforwardly addressed a single argument I put forward. There were two simple syllogisms in the last post.
You denied the premises in the first without any countering facts other than your own unsupported assertion. It other words, from your perspective, your assertion is so only because you say it is so.
You completely ignore the second syllogism.
You were originally challenged to explain cosmic background radiation. Such an explanation objectively leads to the Big Bang Theory. You have ignored these implications with an epistemological "hand wave."
Aristotelean logic may be subject to some valid criticisms. Nonetheless, it is completely valid and the arguments are sound as presented unless you can factually refute the premises... something you have not done with anything other than a "gratuitous denial"... a logical fallacy.
Sorry, I reject your (individual) authority until and/or unless you can perform the feat I suggested earlier ordering the tide to run against its schedule and having it obey you. If you cannot, then your unsupported opinion is worth no more than any potential entertainment value it may have.
If you can directly disprove the premises previously presented, then you have grounds for continued argument. Otherwise, your argument is not a logical argument based upon fact, but merely a "quarrel" to avoid an ego bruise.
Have you a factually based, logically valid counter argument?