Why is there something instead of nothing?
Posted by EarthSky Voices
Lloyd Strickland
Originally published November 11, 2016, in The Conversation
Oh, indeed, a very different matter. Really, try to imagine nothing existing at all. Or try to imagine something always existing. Either way you are left only with “intellectual” or “philosophical” or “metaphysical” assessments.
And the part where God came into existence out of nothing at all…or always existed?
Of course: a leap of faith!
On the other hand, that hasn’t stopped some secularists among us from imagining that they themselves are…God: omniscient and able to know if existence popped into existence out of nothing or was always around.
The void is not necessarily a logical con cept for instance.
It remains to be seen how it was derived, from other than those sources yet to be derived. To void or to erase a memory of some idea of what such substance consists of, may exceed the resources both intellectual ,or another that invites the intention to do so.
That there is something outside the appearent void begs the contest between what can be outside of what is appearent.
That may be beyond efforts to comprehend it as even possible, not less probable to ascertain.
They misundestood Liebniz. It’s not that existence requires a source. It’s that the concept of God requires God being the source of existence. Because God can be thought of, and can be thought of as having created existence, the thought of God The Creator of Existence exists, and so, patently, God the creator of existence exists.
In the same way, the reason it is the best of all possible worlds is that God is perfect, and so the world he created is necessarily the best of all possible worlds.
The thought of all this is what Liebniz considered revelation by the Grace of God. That the thought exists is proof that it is revelation from the Grace of God, by definition.
…again, I can mention anything that comes to mind… doesn’t mean that all n sundry exists… it is simply an idea/ideal that may or might come to fruition or not.
Whatever it is, an idea, a fruit, one thing is certain: it exists. Whether or not it meets the criteria for substance would sooner face the question of whether the concept claims substance, whatever substance might be.
To me, something either does or does not exist… all else are ideas, ideals, notions, assumptions, presumptions, presuppositions and so forth… and even those don’t come from nothing.
It entails both: it’s existential necessity with it’s phenomenologically reduced probablility to the uncertainty of a transcendental unity.
However, that unity, could never have hypothesized had it not been a pre existing image in the first place.
That image of the hypothetical could not have arisen from a primordial mutual exclusion , only through a transcendental object, that entails both in sync.
Other than that, the proof and it’s negation both entail variable elements which can relate directly or inversely , changing transvaluable contents framed accordingly in contextually relative simulated reference.