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

quote:

---

Re: Purpose
If one considers the positive darkness of colour absence it is possible to grasp the transcendent nature of imagined reality. Only then can light be seen in terms of non-conceptual reality. Of course in the absence of imagination there can be no transcendental which leads to the dichotomy of nothing itself being something. At that point the metaphorical apple can be said not to exist metaphorically and the whole of reality will implode in a nothing anti-nothing cancellation effect.

​

Let’s just hope this doesn’t occur.

---

I found the best efforts of my imagination cannot imagine a pre-universe scenario. I imagine this is because all the wiring in my brain is subject to post-universe scenarios. The closest, realistic description I found, was Genesis' opening four words: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD[CREATOR]'. This is such an unimaginably awesome and terrifying scenario, that it can only be accepted theoretically, and because we have no alternative one to consider.When one considers this further, and also upholds a finite universe - what else can apply other than a finite universe creator being applicable? After all, if we nominate anything else, we immediately violate the finite factor of this universe. This is why I say there is no alternative to creationism, and from a scientific emperical POV only. After all, all the theologies are in contradiction of each other - so we know they cannot be right. The premise of LET THERE BE 'LIGHT' is a direct finger poking at science, not theology, to prove the case.Color and darkness are post-universe products and do not apply here.
It is also remarkable from a literary POV how Genesis posits this factor of what prevailed before the universe existed at the very beginning, in the same verse as the first description of the universe and its finite position. It is as if our questions have been anticipated.

My reasoning why evolution cannot apply with anything connected with life or the earth.For evolution to kick off, first there has to be something to evolutionize; this says the raw products of earth [matter] and fully completed life forms, had to be first existant before evolution can claim any impacts. If the earth is 5 B years old, and life 5M years old, we see that evolution and life are recent factors, to the extent if we say the impacts were very slow it becomes farsical and understandably escapist.If matter emerged without evolution, then matter has no reliance on it; the same applies with life forms. Evolution is just a word which observed some changes, and made into the neo science deity. For sure it is not based on any scientific criteria, for sure it is agenda based to counter Creationism. One does not have to be religious to recognise what is a manipulation; atheists have become more paranoid than the religionists today.Evolution is nothing other than the wiring in a directive program. Nature is nothing other than a metaphor of what is inexplicable. Acknowledging a universe maker is not an unscientific premise; its rejection is.

We're all in the same boat. We don't know who or what we are, where we come from, why, how, when, where we're going - or even if there's a place to go to. And we cannot do a thing about it. Both, creator and no creator are equally unprovable; the theologists and scientists are also in the boat. Such a scenario cannot occur randomly. I believe it had to use ultimate power and means to effect such an un-natural and un-acceptable scenario. Its a dead give away of smething applying, but I don't know what that is - it is barred to me and everyone of us. Intentionally is the only logical view here.

A good way to view this is that something and nothing are post-universe duality counterparts, whereby one part cannot exist without the other part. There is no something or nothing pre-universe. 'THING' is a corporeal entity and limited to this finite realm.

Sure that's that. But if you want to go complicated, I'll take you on.

quote:

---

You could start by explaining what "pre-universe" means.

---

Prior to this finite universe emerging.

Time, like space, and anything contained in this uni, is post-uni. A finite cannot contain an infinite component.

It's far more intriguing to confront the reality facing us. The uni is absolutely finite - its exapanding, which says it wasn't infinite 10 seconds ago? This says anything contained in this universe could not have existed pre-universe: this includes phenomenons and faculties such as space, time, light, energy, history, geography, laws and the sciences. In this scenario, things never existed; so no-thing is a counterpart of some-thing; both are moot factors.This is the challenging premise of Genesis and Creationism, but its interest to me is not a theological one, but more a mental grasp of the issue facing humanity outside of theology. There are only two possible scenarios: Creationism or No Creationism. While none are provable, making both legitimate premises, the latter has no alternative answer for us.The big Q arises, what scenario can we imagine or postulate, if the universe is absolutely finite?

If you mean pre and prior subscribe to time, then you make a good point. There is simply no other way to put it due to the limitations of language and thought.

Re Why is there something rather than nothing?The reason I say there is no alternative to creationism [a universe maker for a unuverse] is thus:1. The universe is finite. Which is open to only that it was made possible by an external, pre-dating source. A finite universe allows no pre-existing energy, forces, tools, elements or substances.2. Science has no alternative scenario.Can anyone say why the above is not impacting, and why?

The problem is we have a book which introduced a universe changing paradigm called creationism, namely a universe created by a singular, infinite and omnipotent universe maker; this at the least theoretically resolves the issue what can precede the universe - as opposed to a NO ANSWER.The need for proof cannot apply here - it is neutralized by its antithesis also having no proof; thus only the sound premise applies. Creationism is a 100% sound premise of only two possibilities applying: YES OR NO CREATOR; it is also a scientific premise [cause & effect], open to no other possibilities or valid alternatives.All this is of course only applicable based on an absolutely finite universe.

Again, 'THING' is a thing or some thing in this universe; this universe never existed once - including any things now in it.Once, we could not detect and see virus, radiation and radar, these never even constituted as a thing once; yet they existed. Our mind's wiring is thus limited and conditional to bits of knowledge which fall on our laps periodically, and often alter all previous premises. I find the arguements against a universe maker deficient, both scientifically and from a sound premise; the path of correct thought definitely leans on the creator factor.

non-existent "pre-universe".This is incumbent with a finite universe. Its not subject to sarcasm or rididule - you are evading the issue.

quote:

---

2,000 years ago, this was true for many questions. Supernatural forces were used to explain the path of the Sun in the sky, why water boils, the fermentation of wine, and lightning. How did that turn out? It would seem to me that the God-of-the-Gaps approach has been a spectacular failure throughout history, so why are you relying on it once again?

---

Sorry, but your examples as equalization ignores the stand antithesis of it - one cannot keep ignoring and go into denial forever. The supersticious and occult of the ancient world was broken only with the Hebrew bible: it deemed sorcery as a folly, forbidding human sacrifice to please the gods for the first time, initiating the first seperation of occultism and scientific medicine. Consider the multiple pages describing leprosy, for example, the id, treatment, quarantine of contagious and infectious deseases, incurable malignanices and curable ones - it is different in kind and degree from ancient Egypt and the then world. Although there was later some prowess from Greece, this was a later occurence, well after the Greeks translated the Hebrew bible. There was also herbal medicine from Africa & India, but these too were based on traditional, accidental knowledge while also being embedded in occutism. Nowhere do we find the equivalence seen in the Hebrew bible - this is truly the first imprints of what became a science faculty called medicine. The washing of hands before eating was listed as a mandated commandment for the first time, inferring unseen virus and bacteria. We must also acknowledge the ancient Egyptians who used a herb in the eyes to deflect flies and mosquitoes, which was the right direction, but for the wrong reasons.

quote:

---

The need for proof cannot apply here - it is neutralized by its antithesis also having no proof;

​

No proof equals no explanation. Period.

---

Sorry! The sound premise applies - there is no antithetical proof. Period. There is no escape from cause and effect here - it hovers challenging. Its like waking up in the morning and finding a Pink elephant in your bedroom or a car on Mars. WHO DONE IT applies, even if we do not know WHO DONE IT. In the sound premise thought, I have not seen an alternative to creationism, yet I remain open to any counter sound premise. A complexity from random is not science but the escapist, desperate reverse of science: it explains nothing in a finite realm.

quote:

---

Creationism is a 100% sound premise . . .

​

False. It is backed by zero evidence, therefore it is the opposite of sound. Even worse, asserting supernatural forces in the absence of an explanation has proved to be a very poor way of finding answers.

---

Sorry! Consider how the flat earth was overturned - not by merely rejecting it: Galeleo actually had to prove his case - which he did. Not so your rejection! This universe altering paradigm remains standing defiantly at us:NO ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM.That is not a demand for proving a negative, as is touted. Its a required demand for disproving the positive premise of cause and effect. It is incumbent.

quote:

---

Or are you (and others) suggesting that energy can neither be created nor destroyed except for that one time?

​

Well, you have managed to find

---

Energy per se has no meaning. This is force driven, resultant from a complex set of intentional or 'result factored' criteria. Crude analogy is that gun powder remains benign unless combined in a specific mode with specifically interacting forces; the energy output in the stars must be of a similar construct. Thus energy action seen in stars must be based on a specific directive program able to always result in a spherical [not square] pattern which is explainable. Ignoring this is akin to saying a sperm cell and an egg causing a specific result [offspring] is a random action. Is it - or that a life frm shall follow its kind?