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

The thread's Q can be the ultimate unanswerable, or the simplest one of all.After studying the sciences, I came to the conclusion there is no alternative to Creationism, and thereby the premise of something from nothing [ex nehilo], a premise introduced in Genesis. Consider the following and correct me where you find a glitch:1. Once there was no universe or anything universe contained. This is based on the premise of an absolutely finite universe.2. Then there was the universe.3. Here, looking for laws to explain how this could happen is a mute point: the laws never existed once - else the universe would not be finite or it would pop up everywhere w/o emperical laws. Either way laws do not apply; these were obviously ushered in after the universe appeared. An analogy is a car: before the car and the blueprints of the car [car making laws] - there was the raw base metals. Thus the laws of the universe would have appeared after the universe emerged in its raw form [agreed in some scientific thinking as in the Plank' limit].4. By a process of elimination, namely there is absolutely no other possibility how the universe could have happened, accept by a command by a transcendent force, as stated in Genesis, becomes the only choiceless conclusion. To prove this point, try to name an alternative? Here, it is not the straying from laws and empirical methodology which impacts - its the absolute lack of any possible alternatives available. Remember that when the universe began, there were no laws, no tools or elements, no energy, space or any such things as yet. This leaves only one option - the most disdained by science - ex nehilo.Further. Consider the word CREATE from Genesis' POV. It is a very technical term that appears only in the first creational chapter. The word is replaced with FORMED from Chapter 2 to the rest of the entire Hebrew bible. Why? Because CREATE in Chapter 1 refers to something from nothing; while formed refers to something from something else. When we consider this further, we find that everything in the universe comes under the term FORMED; accept what appeared originally - these were not formed but CREATED in the very technical term of that word and its meaning and it happened only once; only something from nothing is create, technically speaking.If anyone can come up with an alternative - any alternative whatsoever, based on an absolutely finite universe - please enlighten me. I'm listening., especially from a scientific POV Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The big problem is that "nothing" is simply a place-holder for *undefined*. And as such, you're not going to get much of a sensible answer from this angle.

---

I spotted a glitch here. "SPACE". This never existed pre-universe. Nor did DEFINED - this is post-uni.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

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 space

---

Space, posotive and negative yet never existed pre-finite uni. Glitch!You get the idea why I said there is no alternative to ex nehilo?

quote:

---

No glitch nothing is an unnatural unstable state that has a tendency to divide itself in to equal positive end negative parts

---

Sounds like a most improvised answer. You mentioned nothingness, then went on to mention such then unknown phenomena as:TENDENCY [relative to what experience?]DIVIDE [how many initial items were there - 2 or billions?]EQUAL [to what?]PARTS [of what?]You obviously don't subscribe to a finite universe. That is why one must decide their preamble. Saves on ink.

This is a double whammy enigma applying to this issue, equally for both religionists and scientists. Of the universe's emergence the following applies:The science folk tell religionists not to mention godidit. Its an almost impossible ask.Now religionists are telling the science folk not to think science. Its also an almost impossible ask.One must think outside of both those faculties. Laws and science are more recent than the emergence of the universe. The correct question is how could the universe have appeared without science or religion?

None here have even begun to understood or taken up the issue as it should be.Nothing is harder to exist than something, and requires greater input.The initiation of the universe must be imagined and seen without laws, science or any components whatsoever - not even energy, light, space, time or whatever exists in this universe. That is the meaning of a true finite; Dawkins knees shake when this is put to him, thus the fanciful inventions put forward which have no alignment with the manifest universe or science; this also includes the plank threshold - these are escapist manipulations to run from what is evident.It is easily seen that all the fanciful mechanisms posted here and by some scientists are bogus: those reasons cannot apply because it would mean the universe is not 14B but trillions of years old, if not infinite. Why would those fanciful manipulations not have occured trillions of light years ago - why precisely at the universe initiation point? It is thus clear they never occured pre-14B years ago because we know there were no stars or galaxies at that time; we know of nothing existing pre-14B years ago.This scenario is open to only one conclusion: something happened some 14B years ago, and whatever that was, caused a universe to happen. This in turn says the universe's occurence had to have an external trigger impact which was precedent and transcendent of the universe.Ultimately, the best proof of Creationism is science. Forget the nonesensical theologies - most are manifest and vindicated as bogus, in diabolical contradiction of each other even in mundane historical and geographical factors. The science and math best prove Creationism; there is no alternatives to it. True science minded folk must first be honest - the fear of boldly acknowledging scientific and mathematical veracity must not be denied as does all religionists. Today's atheist science is acting as if they found out how a car works and that is their proof there is no car maker; the reverse applies!

quote:

---

Dr Adequate writes:
I, on the other had, asked you to explain why there was something rather than nothing. As God (if he exists) is something, then in order to answer my question, you have to explain God (if he exists).

---

There is a better explanation to this issue. Both nothing and something are universe contained phenomena; no one knows or can identify nothing - it cannot exist in the absense of something.And there is an explanation how a transcendent force [Creator?] can exist in the absence of nothing and something. Here, an infinite is the transcendent factor; this is above both nothing and something. Why so? Because it is transcendent of both. How so? Consider what an infinite represents - we can only see this in abstract terms; the true meaning of infinite is that which is not subject to 'CHANGE' - what ever changes something is transcendent of what it changes; whatever is not subject to change remains forever unaffected by anything.There is magestic science in the Hebrew bible. When the question was asked by Moses, a question every red blooded scientist would ask, namely what is the source of the Creator - who created the Creator? The answer was absolutely brilliant and mind boggling:'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED'.Consider that in scientific terms: who or what can claim the same attribute? It means that what is unaffected by both nothing and something, yet able to cause both nothing and something. Here, one can ask, what was existing before the universe, if not nothing or something? This answer is also seen only in Genesis, anticipating the question for those who have considered this writings scientifically. The answer is seen in the first four opening words of genesis: "IN THE BEGINNING GOD."Not nothing; not something. Not science; not laws. Here, we have to accept what is very hard for us: we are given dominion of the universe - but this is limited by only one factor, which is represented by the first alphabet. Namely we are given the B to Z; the first opening alphabet in Genesis being the second alphabet; the first Alef is barred and elusive. This is also the meaning behind the metaphoric story of Adam & Eve: they are given the entire paradise, except one small measeley tree - yet they threw away all the gfts of paradise for the pursuit of the one singular forbidden. Its a brilliant strategy! For me, science proves there is no alternative to Creationism. Big bangs don't cut it.

quote:

---

These are the answers to the questions: "Who are you?" and: "Have you changed?".
Now try answering: "Why was there something rather than nothing?".

---

I suggest this enigma must be considered outside of science and laws, which apply only to this universe. Here, the premise of nothing and something is aligned only with positive and negative, a duality system pervasive throughout the universe, but mute when applying it to how the universe was initiated.It is not possible to consider the thread's question via science or theology.
We known zero about the origins of anything, including pineapples, stars or the universe. Science is post-universe, and well outside our considerations here.

quote:

---

We have plenty of evidence of "something". We have no evidence for "nothing". So why would we postulate that before something there was nothing?

---

Can you have postivie w/o negative? Once we understand there is no ONE in the universe, technically speaking, we will see that nothing and something are post-universe paradigms. There is very deep scientific cadence n this deceptively simple verse:'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM' [Genesis].Before asking how can anything be created, consider that it is nigh impossible for the first human to be male or female, then find another such life form with the exact reverse gender trait. Here, Genesis is saying the first human was a dual gendered life form, they then seperated to male and female. There is no alternative to this, otherwise it is not possible for an offspring to become male or female: the original host had to contain both attributes.By subsequent example, Genesis is saying 'ALL' things in the universe emerged in a duality, each part specifically attributed to recognize, interact and align with its counter-part according to the directive program embedded in them. This is the deep meaning in Genesis: there is no ONE in the universe. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Yes, its a paradox, for both the theologists and the scientiststs equally. We are given the B to Z; the A factor remains elusive and cannot be acquired voluntarilly or via the post-universe sciences and theologies. This is also why no Messiah or enlightened being has yet emerged - his/her job is to reveal the purpose of creation or the universe. We yet do not know WHY, while everything in the universe appears t work in wisdom. And a purposeless universe makes no sense.

quote:

---

IAJ writes:
And a purposeless universe makes no sense.

​

But how can there be purpose unless there is something capable of intent?

---

Sorry, that is wrong by a mindless mile. It is ubsurd to see no intentional and purposeful critical passage between H & O = water; water being indispensible for life on earth, and the anticipatory actions listed in Genesis before the advent of life. One can name millions of such examples which cater only to intent and purpose. This ancient deeply thought premise applies:THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS.

The thing gets easier if one thinks positive and negative, and that both these are post-universe factors. Once there was no light or darkness; hard to imagine, but hey - once there was no imagination either. The buck stops at the second alphabet when we backtrack; the A is barred and elusive and represents the forbidden apple metaphor. There is nothing wrong with the human brain, except its wiring is limited. We cannot even fathom a new color.

Genesis begins with the second alphabet, denoting the A is barred, and analogised to the forbidden apple of Eden. Which part was confusing?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

It is clear we nothing about the origins of anything. Everything we know about anything is after its post-origin point.Before knowing everything, first acknowledge what we don't know. Genesis is 100% vindicated. Scientisists refer to this barred data as the X factor. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The seond alphabet refers to the Hebrew, namely Bet, beta in Greek, B in english. The verse begins with the second alphabet, and says IN THE BEGINNING GOD, namely the A refers to what is to do with origin and barred from our mind's knowing, this B alphabet being a square with only one side left open - that of going forward and whatever is behind or before being out of our mind's grasp. This is vindicated today. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.