Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? An Inquiry Into the Existence of God

Black Codes Definition - Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? An Inquiry Into the Existence of God

Good evening. Now, I learned all about Black Codes Definition - Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? An Inquiry Into the Existence of God. Which could be very helpful if you ask me and you. Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing? An Inquiry Into the Existence of God

When all questions are finally asked, and all answers finally postulated, the great remaining mystery for mankind is likely to be the existence of existence. Why does existence exist? Why is there something rather than just nothing? Martin Heidegger characterized this as the most fundamental issue of philosophy. Are eternity and existence synonymous, or was there a time without existence? Was there a first cause, or is existence continuous, without starting or end, constituting all past, present, and future states? When physicists relate the universe as expanding, what is it increasing into? When philosophers speak of the starting and end of time, what broader time scale are they using for reference?

What I said. It shouldn't be the final outcome that the true about Black Codes Definition. You see this article for home elevators anyone want to know is Black Codes Definition.

Black Codes Definition

We have some knowledge about existence and how it evolved. Our current wisdom allows us to peel back the sequence of cause and effect, starting from our present condition and working back toward the starting of time as we know it. We are able to do this in the context of some scientific disciplines. For example, the theory of evolution describes life's ascent, in reverse order, to human from primate, to primate from small mammal, to small vertebrate from fish, to fish from maritime invertebrate, to maritime invertebrate from multi-celled organism, to multi-cell organism from particular cell, and to particular cell from the basic building blocks of proteins and replication code. We can also contemplate reverse chronology straight through the lens of geology and astronomy. Mountains and valleys emerged from plate tectonics, plates coalesced from an earth formed from solar theory debris, the solar theory was forged from the remnants of earlier stars, earlier stars gravitated from clouds of hydrogen gas, clouds of gas erupted from plasma during the inflationary expansion of the big bang, and the big bang exploded from the former singularity of the current universe.

Unfortunately, no matter which discipline is used to unravel the evolution of our existence, they all dead end with the most basic examine - why is there whatever at all? Why are there molecules and atoms and quarks? Why are there stars and galaxies and planets? These questions are not about why did hydrogen atoms become stars, or why did stars construct more complex atoms, but why is there any damn thing at all? Why isn't there just nothing? Why isn't there just a formless, timeless, empty set of obsidian oblivion, with nary a sound, nary a ray of light, or nary a measure of matter?

Theists address this examine with the postulation that God is the conjecture why there is whatever at all. This is a tidy hypothesis, at least superficially, but despite being generally accepted, it leads to an infinite regression that in the end is not helpful for the truly inquisitive. The proposition that God created existence merely leads to a similar examine about the source of God. I suppose one can conjure a creator for the Creator, but what is the point? Conjuring an infinite regression of creators does not precisely answer the former question, which still lingers like flatulence in polite company. Why is there whatever at all, along with creators?

For atheists, the view of conjuring creators is repugnant, partly because it leaves the primary examine unanswered, and partly because it is thoroughly unjustified, for lack of evidence, logic, and necessity. This leaves one alternative for the existence of existence, which is that existence has always existed. But, even for atheists, this seems uncomfortably close to a leap of faith. There is no direct evidence that existence has always existed. We have various theories that posit universes giving birth to other universes via black holes, or endless cycles of contraction and expansion of our one universe, but these theories are speculative and unproven. The haunting examine of existence still taunts even the most devout skeptics.

The leap of faith that existence has always existed leaves an unsatisfying intellectual aftertaste for atheists, and directly conflicts with the fundamental factory of theists. To fantasize that there never was nothingness in the grand panorama of eternity seems somehow alien to almost everyone. Maybe it seems alien because we are accustomed to a world where everything has a beginning, where all effects can be traced to causes, so therefore we expect that the perceived ensue of existence must also wish a starting or a cause. Or Maybe it seems alien because there is just no conjecture for there to be something, rather than nothing. In other words, nothingness is the natural state, and existence is somehow a more complex and refined increasing to it. Or Maybe it is just the conceit of anthropocentric perspective compelling us to feel that existence must be a special case, because we are special, and we are not inherent without a exact existence fine-tuned to adapt us. Or Maybe we have just wallowed so long in creation myths and imaginary consummate causative beings that our intellectual toolboxes are artificially wee to the idea that the creation of existence out of nothingness must have happened somehow and some time, at the behest of God. It's all we know. It is how we have been conditioned to think.

The examine of existence is so mind bending that it is tempting to dismiss it as an idle musing that will yield nothing but a migraine. However, the answer to the question, no matter how challenging, is the only thing that will settle the examine of God. If existence has always existed, there is no place for God in it. What role does a consummate being have if the being is not supreme, i.e., not the cause of existence and therefore not excellent to existence? The view of God becomes thoroughly unnecessary and redundant. It is exactly this corner that the theists will finally paint themselves into. As science advances, theists retreat, redefining and reducing their god from epoch to epoch to those fewer and fewer mysteries which remain after the progress of time and knowledge. In some future epoch, the only remaining mystery, and thus the only remaining refuge for the view of God, will be the source of existence. And even this refuge will evaporate if we finally come to know with certainty that existence has always existed.

But, until that day of discovery arrives, there remains a doubt that troubles even those who customarily wallow in skepticism. We stand in awe at the magnitude of the universe and in ignorance at the grand scope of infinity. Where did it all come from? Even if existence was wee to a solitary atom, a particular quark, or one small vibrating string, we would still examine explanation, purpose, and meaning. Where did that tiny speck of existence come from? What was its source? What caused it to pop into being?

Let's think more deeply the various alternatives for explaining existence.

One alternative is that existence did not always exist, and came forth from nothingness at the behest of an omnipresent and omnipotent being called God. While this cannot be excluded as a possibility, it suffers from an excruciating lack of reasonableness and supporting evidence. Not only isn't there any evidence that God created the universe, there isn't any evidence of God. Aside from this paucity of evidence, the postulation only superficially addresses the examine of existence. It explains (without evidence or logic) the creation of our observed universe, but it begs the examine of God's own existence. Where did the creator come from? It is illogical to voice that the universe had to have a beginning, only to grant an irregularity to that rule for the creator that is imagined to have created the universe. Why not just grant the irregularity to the universe itself, and argue that it, rather than God, always existed? What is gained by adding the complexity of an invisible, unknowable, and immeasurable phantom as a causative explanation? This additional complexity seems to move us farther from, rather than closer to, solving the riddle. Lacking evidence or logic, the view of god is thus an intellectual barrier, stopping our investigation at an imaginary gate blocking the path to basic truths.

So, despite this, what compels us to lean on the flimsy factory of God as the source of existence? Maybe we are too precisely intimidated by stupendous, mind-numbing concepts such as eternity and infinity, huge numbers like trillions and quintillions, and scalar extremes that range from the galactic at the large end and the measure at the small end. These extremes are frighteningly alien to our familiar scales of time, space, and human perspective, so we retreat to the relieve of an invented creator who is magically the source and protector of our existence. In our brittle personal worlds, we fear death, we fear isolation, we fear threats to our self-preservation, and we fear a mystifying cosmos. In the context of these fears, God is not only a tidy answer to a baffling examine about existence, god is our safety blanket. Many pick this delusion, but nothing is truly answered by the God postulation. It is merely window dressing for the less comforting reality that we humans are small, ignorant, and temporal. The God postulation leaves us no better off than with Hindu paradox that "it's turtles all the way down".

Another mystery of the creation out of nothingness hypothesis is that no experiment could ever verify that there was ever nothing, if only because such an experiment implies at least an observer. But even this mystery pales in comparison to the contradictory issue of the creator, who is also not nothing. To solve this difficulty, the creator could be removed from the hypothesis, but this leaves simply...nothing. Lacking a creator or a causative agent, nothingness would logically remain nothingness. There would be nothing to cause nothingness to become something. This could be determined a law of existential momentum, wherein states of nothingness remain nothingness, unless acted up by an external agent (which, of course, implies that there wasn't precisely nothingness to begin with). It is a brutal metaphysical Catch-22. Nothingness is not nothingness if there is a creator, and nothingness can never be whatever but nothingness without an external force like a creator.

Perhaps the universe popped out of nothingness into existence of its own accord. While this cannot be excluded as a possibility, it seems terribly unlikely. It is consuming to fantasize the singularity that exploded as the Big Bang was so close to being nothingness that Maybe it precisely was, in the occasion before it became a singularity. But such reasoning truly is just imagination. Currently, our ability to contemplate the universe and the after-effects of the Big Bang does not afford us a window into what existence was like at the time of the singularity, and precisely not before. Not only does our ability to contemplate fail to reach back to the singularity, our main theories, such as measure mechanics and relativity, also collapse when extrapolated back to the point of singularity. Lacking any way to contemplate what happened prior to the singularity, and lacking any theory that can postulate what came before it, we have no conceivable explanation as to how nothing could have become something, or how an infinite void could have candidly yielded the singularity that became our universe. We don't even have any evidence that there was nothingness before our universe. We don't even have any evidence that before has any meaning.

Another mystery with the spontaneous birth of the universe out of nothing is that the explanation for something emerging out of nothingness cannot begin without invoking some other pre-existent something. In other words, if you assume a starting state of nothing, what is it that could Maybe cause something to emerge from it? For example, you can invoke God to help with this, but God is something, not nothing. Or, you can invoke a measure fluctuation in a vacuum, but even a measure fluctuation is still something. Or, you can invoke other universes that gave birth to ours, but those other universes are still something. Or, you can invoke some mysterious power as a causative agent, but that power is still something. It is not inherent to construct an discussion for nothing becoming something without development reference to something as a causative agent. Given this argument, and given that existence currently exists, and given that we have zero evidence of primordial nothingness, the assumption of primordial nothingness is very difficult to support.

Another alternative is that existence has always existed. One distinguished discussion in its favor is that existence currently exists. It is a hard, unmistakable fact. Maybe this fact is so distinct that it is easy to overlook it. All of the stars, galaxies, planets, mountains, seas, flora, fauna, molecules, atoms, and quarks are precisely here. They are not imagined or conjured or the ensue of wishful thinking. That existence exists today is an unchallengeable truth that surrounds us, comprises us, and defines us. It is as clear and immutable as any evidence could Maybe be. From a direct observational perspective, we have a sample size of one (the current universe) concerning inherent states of existence. From this sample size of one, the only unarguable conclusions are that existence exists, that a state of nothingness does not exist, and that there are no other samples to observe.

Another hint that existence has always existed can be extrapolated from the law of conservation of energy, which states that power can neither be created nor destroyed. A strong discussion can be made that a distinct ensue of this law must also be true. Let's call it the law of conservation of nothingness. Since power can neither be created nor destroyed in our state of existence, it must also be true that in a state of nothingness, power cannot be created or destroyed. If the power in our current existence can be neither created nor destroyed, and if power can't be created or destroyed in a state of nothingness, then there is an insurmountable barrier in the middle of the two states. One can never become the other. An energetic state can never become nothing, and a state of nothingness can never become energetic. Given this, and given that we have unmistakable evidence that existence exists today, it is a very inexpensive inference that it must have always existed. Stated differently, our empirical laws tell us that power cannot be destroyed in the present or in the future, so this is a distinguished discussion for the eternality of existence in all directions of time, along with the past.

So, what justification is there for arguing that there ever was whatever but existence? How can we contemplate the breadth and depth of existence in its seemingly infinite manifestations, only to dismiss it as something temporal and fleeting? There is no conjecture to do this! There is something rather than nothing, plainly because there is something. The view of prerequisite nothingness is an unnatural thing. There is no need for first causes, creators, and prime movers, all of which introduce illogical, unresolved regressions. It's all unnecessary. The most natural thing in the world is to accept existence as eternal.

Perhaps the struggle with the view that existence has eternally existed isn't so much about its consistency of logic or the compilation of evidence supporting the notion. Maybe the real struggle is plainly about the view of eternity. It isn't so much that we can find any real conjecture why existence isn't eternal, we just can't get our heads nearby eternity per se. Abstractions like eternity and infinity are so far face our range of comprehension, so far face our conceited self-referential measuring sticks, that we feel compelled to quantize them, to picture-frame them with limits and prerequisites, to book-end them with beginnings and endings. Unfortunately, the tasteless method for doing this, which is to voice that God is the creator of existence and the grand causative and quantizing agent our minds yearn for, plainly substitutes one incomprehensible view of eternity for another. Nothing is gained with this substitution, other than our invented anthropomorphic consummate being is subconsciously easier to relate to. Even though God embodies the same mysterious characteristics of eternity and infinity, He is something of our invention, something of our own image and likeness, so therefore He is closer to our scale and relieve zone. He makes us feel safe, purposeful, and Maybe even loved, whereas the disembodied impartiality of eternal existence does not.

Pascal wrote, "Since man is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of things and their beginnings are hopelessly private from him in an impenetrable secret". Putting this in contemporary relativistic terms, the infinite past and the infinite future lie face of our light cones. We can never interact with them. Likewise, the outer edges of the universe, if there are such things, lie beyond our ability to see. Clearly, we have conjecture to be overwhelmed by these incomprehensible extremes of the infinity that we are part of and yet swallowed up in. This drives our need for something finite to relate to. This causes some citizen to clutch onto the view of God to humanize infinity for them. Others accept infinity as it is, nervously and uncertainly, with some degree of ignorance, and a large degree of humility.

But, none of these psychological weaknesses, no matter how passionately rooted in our immature brains, can turn reality. A is A, as Aristotle counseled us. Existence exists. Existence has always existed. Where does this leave God? To paraphrase Laplace, we have no need of that hypothesis to illustrate existence. Applying Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is that existence is eternal. Any other hypothesis requires the increasing of unnecessary complexity and layers.

Perhaps this conclusion speculation will offer some solace to those who dread an eternal universe without God and some variant of life after death. There is great power in the concepts of infinity and eternity. A ensue of these concepts is that any event with non-zero probability has already happened, Maybe many times, and will happen again, Maybe many times. The fact that you are reading this means that you exist, which means your existence has non-zero probability. This, by definition, means that you existed one or more times in the past (perhaps an infinite number of times). It also means that you will exist again in the future. Setting aside the inconvenient truth that the past "yous" and the future "yous" are discontinuous from the present you, this consuming quirk of infinity can be determined a kind of immortality or reincarnation that could relieve a theist and satisfy an atheist. So, if you can embrace this perspective, hug a loved one and tell them you will precisely meet again, some other time and some other place.

I hope you get new knowledge about Black Codes Definition. Where you may put to use in your day-to-day life. And most importantly, your reaction is passed about Black Codes Definition.