Why is there somehing instead of npthing?

[Schneibster]

Only if they insist on trying to use abuse science to make it seem like scientists are only coming to realise what they knew all along ( ). The more prudent theist, like Georges Lemaître, would say that God is a matter for the heart and not embarrass themselves by trying to use science to prove God.
Of course he had the advantage of being a scientist, unlike other theologians like WLC.

What amazes me is how they don't just admit it and move on.

The smart ones go, "It's allegory," and move on. It's not like they don't have an example.

[hiyymer]

At the fundamental level, the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is a false dichotomy. Why wouldn't there be both something and nothing? What prevents either one? Why can't an acausal quantum fluctuation happen in the midst of nothingness? What's to stop it?

"acausal"? You mean like God?

Interesting to think that people once thought the universe was eternal (steady state). Then science found that it was expanding. So now we have to have a beginning. We start at the "singularity" which is meaningless. Has science proven that that's the way it had to be, that the universe started as a blob of energy that exploded into matter and anti-matter (except that no one has still figured out why matter survived the subsequent annihilation). Can we prove that it wasn't a big bounce?

[Jonesboy]

?

Idiot. What makes you think there is something?

[vjohn82]

Isn't this just one of those questions theists ask followed by a load of waffle ending in, "Because God"?
At which point the clever-clogs asks, "Why is there God rather than nothing"?

A question I often revert to with the Mother in Law...

[mistermack]

To answer the something vs. nothing question, you first have to explain infinity.
Because something is infinitely greater than nothing.

Tero's not asking much there.