From the webpage: Creation and Big Bang Cosmology (see above) the following text fragment: "But why think that such a cause exists at all? Very simply, the causal inference is based in the metaphysical intuition that
something cannot come out of absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot actualize itself. In the case of the universe (including any boundary points), there was not anything physically prior to the initial singularity.{4} The potentiality for the existence of the universe could not therefore have lain in itself, since it did not exist prior to the singularity. On the theistic hypothesis, the potentiality of the universe's existence lay in the power of God to create it. On the atheistic hypothesis, there did not even exist the potentiality for the existence of the universe. But then it seems inconceivable that the universe should become actual if there did not exist any potentiality for its existence. It seems to me therefore that a little reflection leads us to the conclusion that the origin of the universe had a cause."
So, this explain how the Theists make their arguments. Their counteragument against the
metaphysical argument that something cannot come out of absolutely nothing, is to state that there was God. However the absolute nothing (as a pure concept of thought, and not being an actual state of the world) is defined in such a way, that it does not just denote the absence of any concept we have of anything physical, it denotes the fact that NOTHING (wether physical or not) whatsoever would exist. A TOTAL NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. NADA. NOPPES.
About this issue of God then, we can only make two assumptions. Either God exists or does not exist. In the case God exist, the absolute nothing would therefore not contain God. Hence, no creation 'out of nothing'.
A nothing, by its definition is a state in which there is not something that exists. It does therefore not permit us to introduce anything arbitrarily. So, if God exists, this means that the state of nothing, does not contain God or anything else that exists.
Does that proof that God does not exist? No, and that is of course not the point. The point is not wether or not God in reality exist, the point is that the existence fact of God must be either positevely or negatively admitted and stated. A state of total nothingness denotes that there is not anything existing, and in which by definition also God is not existing.
Once you state that God is existent, then you can not "from nothing" argue that there is a God which exist in the state of the world, which is defined as that there is
not something existing. Doing so, would invalidate any form of language rules and reason. It would therefore be unreasonable.
Back to the question. Why is there something instead of nothing?
What we need to see is that the nature of the question would in fact dicate us to assume, that since we have to explain all of existence, can not hold ANYTHING as existing. So, this would indicate, that we could not in any possible way answer that question, since for any grounds to be made that could form a satisfactory explenation, we would need to make a statement in the form: "Because X is the case". But since we can not assume anything, there is no X that could form sufficient grounds.
But there is of course something, that becomes immediately clear here. We are not stating this question out of any reality, out of existence itself, but we are part of existence. We are consciouss, in the sense that to the very minimum we acknowledge the fact that we positively state that we exist.
This is some fixed indication that, while at first instance the question looks impossible to answer, there is a possibility of answering the question.
Since we can positevely state there is a world, which at least contains us and is formed and based on the fact that we positevely admit that we exist, we have sufficient grounds to answer the question.
We are not reasoning "out of nothing" or apart from or outside of reality itself, we are always reasoning from an existing reality, we know exists (only, in this phase, we might not have found out in what form, but that is another question).
For any consciouss being to exist (wether it be me, you, an alien or God) it would work the same. Consciousness is defined as self awareness, so this means we can positevely state we are there.
The question only has no meaning to something that has no concsiousness, and can not positevely state it's own existence. In that case the question is meaningless of course.
So what we know then is that:
[1] There is no possible way in which from nothing a something can emerge
[2] There is a world. It at least contains me, my consciousness (I can state that I exist and witnes the world)
[3] The world therefore must have existed for eternity
Although I can conclude, since it is inconceivable that there was a time in which the world was not, the world must have existed always, without a begin (and probably also without an end), I do not yet know as in what form the world has always existed.
Since from point 2 I can only conclude my own consciousness to exist, and in first instance do not yet know wether or not there is a real world outside, independend and apart from my consciousness (I could reason that only my mental perceptions about a real world exist, but not the real world itself), I can make two alternative hypothesis:
[1] The world has always existed in the form of my consciousness
[2] The world has always existed in a form which is apart from, outside and independend of my consciousness
I have reason to assume that hypothesis 1 is not true. If that were the case then I would have been consciousness for an eternity, but my consciousness itself indicates that is not the case.
Therefore I have to assume that
the world has always existed in a form which is apart from, outside and independend from my consciousness.
