The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?

Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning on this point.

there is no reasoning, i'm simply stating a fact. Or perhaps you have a definition of "nothing" of which I am unaware?

"Undefined" as in as yet unknownor"undefined" as in lacking anything that could be defined.

If cavediver decides to grace us mere mortals with some actual teaching rather than just some dismissive quips we may find out.

So, for speculation 1, since this universe "came into being" the only configurations possible had to contain "something" by definition.

Who says this universe "came into being"?

I found some glitches here.quote:Let me put a diferent crackpot theory up for grabs.0 is an unnatural state and it cant be found anywhere eccept on paper.
We see nothing produce virtual particles particles that in one moment come into exsistance in pairs then colide and go out of exsistance in the next moment they last for such a short time that they are not considered part of reality.Yes, these are called omega or ghost particles, which appear to come from nowhere and become discernable upon impact with electrons. BUT! You are posing a post- or in-universe scenario, when empirical laws exist. These laws and their resultant products never existed pre-finite-uni. Glitch!quote:Lets say space can do the same it pops into exsistance for a short while then collides with negative space and goes out of exsistance again.None of these existed at the point of the universe. Even the BBT speculates a singular entity initiated the universe. Glitch!quote:so now lets propose that space comes into exsistance with negative spaceSpace, posotive and negative yet never existed pre-finite uni. Glitch!You get the idea why I said there is no alternative to ex nehilo?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll just ask all my clients to call back later whilst I compose some longer replies.

bluegene writes:I basically agree with Doc A. in the O.P. that we can't really sort the question out.

iamjoseph writes:correct question is how could the universe have appeared without science or religion?

Indeed, if anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for.

First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Black Cat writes:William Lane Craig provides a concise answer to the above assertion.

Black Cat quoting William Lane Craig writes:So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Black Cat writes:This is false. William Lane Craig provides a concise answer to the above assertion. For this reason I will quote it directly.