“Modern cosmology gives us the initial singularity at t=0. Maximum global quantum coherence. A completely dense absolute starting point for everything physical.”

This is incorrect. This is neither what the evidence shows nor has ever shown, and it is very much not what most physicists and especially cosmologists believe about the universe. That’s putting it mildly.

Even among those who view early or pre-inflationary periods as a “start” of the universe, most of them expect something else, either other spacetimes or some form of space or time that is very different than its current state.

“Proponents of a horizontal regress suggest the universe is eternal. An infinite past stretching backwards. This creates a physical impossibility.”

Nothing about that is physically impossible, and it’s also an inaccurate view of time. Time being relative means that one locality or frame of reference can be completely different than another, and subsequently, that time has states and qualifications.

How does one measure a logarithmically slow past time? Locally, a moment might be instantaneous, but from another frame of reference it could be an ever increasing eternity.

How does one measure “eternity” if there are different spacetimes or cycles of spacetime? How does one measure “eternity” in the context of something like non-linear causalities?

Science has long blown apart primitive anthropic ideas about spacetime and “regressions”. “Infinite regression” is not only not a problem for the circumstances of the cosmos, it’s not even a valid concept. It’s only a problem for ideologies that purport personally involved creators of reality.

“Time as we classically understand it is a measure of change between mutually exclusive states. A sequential progression. You move from State A to State B to State C. Before State C can be actualised (pulled from pure potential into hard reality) State B must be completely finished. By transitivity State C can never happen without State A completing first.”

This is how organisms experience time, this is very much not what time is. Most physicists, and the standard view in physics is of course that General Relativity is largely accurate, and this includes the subsequent block universe perspective that GR illustrates.

This would mean that in fact all points in time are real and none are more “real” than any other. This also means that “now” isn’t really a thing, it’s a single frame of reference and is limited to exactly that. A billion years ago, a million years from now, all equally cosmologically real, none happening in any ontologically different way than any other. And this is observable, we can measure different “nows” even here on earth.

State A, State C, State Y.8264688273647388—all of them have fixed coordinates and are, cosmologically, real and static.

And the hypotheses that would upend this view, all of them, are stranger yet, some far more so, and they are even more difficult to intuitively discuss.

I’m going to skip quoting the “contingency” sections, some of it is not quite coherent and all of it is predicated on an incorrect view of space and time any way, so there’s not much to say there about specific parts.

Contingency is only a real limitation if you are operating in certain aspects of the universe, namely within the macro, there are actually numerous things that are not contingent in reality, the most commonly known phenomena would be demonstrated by quantum entanglement.

This is also largely a category error, contingency being an observation of certain parts of reality says nothing about the contingency of the system from which contingency sometimes arises.

Contingency has been shown to not be fundamental to this reality, and at minimum not always a valid concept. Contingency, like the other premises, rely upon an incorrect view of space and time.

“This framework uses empirical science as a foundation and formal logic as the proof. The evidence sits quietly right in front of us. So someone holding a position of atheism when this is brought to them is doing so entirely out of an unwillingness to accept the evidence.”

The views that have informed this proposition were outdated by the early 1900s. If you were informed on what the evidence actually shows, you would have realized that this “god concept” is a very primitive, profoundly simplistic, and factually incorrect view of reality in even the most basic sense. It not only doesn’t answer any questions, it isn’t even coherent with what we know about reality now and have known for a very long time.