Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

On 04/11/2025 12:16 PM, shades@cov.net.inv wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/09/2025 07:21 AM, Richmond wrote:

What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
nothing to exist?
>

>
Well it can follow from consideration or contemplation/deliberation
itself: on the universal, vis-a-vis the void, that there are examples
since antiquity like 'nature abhors a vacuum', about creation and
destruction vis-a-vis conservation, that considering "nothing" is
the same as considering "everything".
>
It's sort of like when a given thing, is, everything that it is not.
>
>
Then, this gets into things like why there's a principle of inversion
instead of a principle of (non-)contradiction, that's sort of been
a usual idea since antiquity, the principle of non-contradiction,
yet instead, a principle of inversion can see that arrive and
for reason and rationality and according to nature and reality.
>
So, really it's a question to answer for yourself, where though
the usual "fundamental question of metaphysics" is "why is there
something rather than nothing", then there's quite a bit of the
canon and dogma and doctrine about it, to make inter-subjective
accounts, vis-a-vis, usual personal individual ponderings.
>
>
Anyways there's an idea that the universe exists simply because

>
-----------------------------------
>
It exists because God created it.

That's a usual notion, that the "Omni" and "Super" are more
than merely super-scientific, both paradoxical and true,
evident in all things yet an un-knowable mystery, from
pondering higher powers and theirs ad infinitum or one
of them and as for monism and monotheism.
Then there's also that it always existed and creates itself,
also a monism and monotheism, where it's so that theories of
origins like Big Bang and Steady State are neither falsifiable,
according to the sky survey the age of universe increases a
few billion years each few years, where the truth of what's
arrived at makes for a continuum mechanics of some perfect logic.
So, the perfect and sublime, as what may be from G-d's mind,
has that here there's a logical theory that puts paradox and
truth away into the super-natural, as Duns Scotus puts it,
that it's super and it's natural, then as super-scientific,
thus beyond the mere realm of the phenomenological, and even
beyond the noumenological, the omnipotent and omniscient and
omnipresent the omnific, has that G-d as it may be is above
mere mortals' demands, supplications, or petitions, though
it may be holy to model theory on the holy, the holistic monism.
Then that's a matter of a sort of voluntary submission, religion,
where religion is that to which one binds, it's as well so that
for reason one can arrive at principles of perfection and the
sublime, then the silver thread of teleology may be a merest
"universal truth", and with concepts like freedom of thought,
then that when there's invoked G-d, that's always through the
lens of the invoker thusly different things to different people.
Or, hubris demands that the truth of reason makes for a Principle
of Sufficient and Thorough Reason, that insofar as it's perfect
and sublime, it must be perfect and sublime.
So, the Omni and Super is true, say, yet insofar as Man and
reason go, super-scientifically (naturally).