The question of why there is something rather than nothing provides nearly limitless fuel for both scientific and theological speculation. What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.
I'm not too sure what you mean by the last sentence. Maybe you can clarify this?
Sure.
It seems far more common to assume that there was a state of nothingness preceding the creation of the universe than to assume that the universe spawned out of some other sort of entity. I am questioning why a state of void (nothing) is considered more probable that a state of non-void (something).
Good point.
We really have no evidence for either proposition, and debates about what happened "before creation" are, by definition, irrational since time is a property of the universe.
der biest
I think the evidence points to dependent origination. The claim that something uncaused caused cause and effect goes against what we know and understand about reality.
How delightful! A member of the "something" party.
I personally get a little vertiginous when I try to consider the merits of one versus the other. My main objection is to those who believe that one of the possibilities is actually a matter of fact and argue on the basis of illogic and an unscientific understanding of cosmology.
Right, we humans don't really know if or how there was a "beginning"... though it would make much more logical sense imo if everything simply always has been, in one form or another, as all things seem to interdependently arise. Even the Big Bang cannot be considered a beginning, since the "primeval atom" may have simply been a condensed or collapsed former universe for all we know, among other explanations... maybe the Hindus got it right, in that the universe periodically collapses and is reborn again?
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM