Ping!
It had to be someplace. Here is just as good as anywhere..............
I recently read the Laslie/Kuhn book; found it not very satisfying. After all, if the sudden appearance of mass and energy can be explained by somewhat arcane rules of quantum mechanics, then who wrote those rules?
TC
Summation.
Infinite time is impossible to explain.
The beginning of time is impossible to explain, except as an isolated finite observer.
Infinite existance of matter is impossible to explain.
The creation of energy or matter from nothing is impossible to explain.
That is the unanswerable paradox of our universe.
I’m pretty sure that I’m the only real thing, and the rest of you are just here for my entertainment.
This is easy. Something has to exist so my first ex-mother-in-law would have something to bitch about...........not very scientific but that's the truth, flrp
Any child could answer that question: "Because."
All this is just a way of trying to disprove Aquinas who argued that there must be an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause.
Some scientists really want us to believe that something can arise spontaneously from nothing.
It’s your world—I’m just in it.
There is SOMETHING because there IS something. I am much more interested in the nature of existence than I am how it got here and however it got here is a question that can only be answered by science and not by mysticism in my opinion.
According to Frisky the wonder tigress, the Great Cat is swishing her tail and bearing her fangs, and we mean mean mean stingy unappreciative two-leggers are going to be sorry sorry sorry we weren’t nice to kitties when we had the chance.
One word - “fields”.
apparently nothing ain’t what it used to be.
Ah yes, the universe according to Seinfeld.
Nothing must be something if you can get something from nothing.
**Why is There Anything at all?**
Because of God!
I'm currently reading Feser's book, "The Last Superstition". He is really doing a number on Richard Dawkins in that book, and on other atheists of Dawkins ilk. (Feser takes great delight in pointing out the many flaws in Dawkins arguments and understanding, due to his very shallow grasp - or complete lack thereof - of philosophy, including what St. Thomas Aquinas was really saying.)
I started reading that Feser book because "Fr. Mitch Pacwa" has highly recommended it a number of times. For me, it is very slow reading (to try to follow exactly what he is saying at times), but it is very fascinating, once I get at least a slight glimmer of what he is saying.