Why is there something rather than nothing?

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot claim something exists and doesn't exist at the same time, Sock.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!
There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
Axioms are not postulates!
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
 
I can tell you a tale of unicorns, magic wands, and evil wizards too, Sock.
Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!
There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
Axioms are not postulates!
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
 
Oh? Let's hear your description of this religion, Sock.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!
There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
Axioms are not postulates!
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
 
Why is there something rather than nothing?

Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the Universe is simply that it, and everything in it, exists. But what's the reason why?

It's a question that almost everyone has wondered at some point: given all the things that exist around us, in this world and in the great Universe beyond, what's the reason for why it all exists?

This is one of those questions, I’m sorry to say, that science not only doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for right now, but will probably never have one.

There’s an enormous difference between a “why” question, which science isn’t really well-equipped to answer, with a “how” question, which is the bread-and-butter of what science is good for. If we were to ask the question of why we’re all here, there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question: we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that. Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows, there’s a limit to what we can derive from them: we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions, but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science.

I think, I think I am
Therefore I am, I think

[Establishment (Graeme Edge)]
Of course you are, my bright little star!
I've miles and miles of files
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit our great computer!
You're magnetic ink

[First Man (Justin Hayward)]
I'm more than that! I know I am
At least, I think I must be

[Inner Man (Mike Pinder)]
There you go, man
Keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials with smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive the web they weave
And keep on thinking free
 
You thought asking why we have air was stupid question, so why would you be interested in the answer now?

I could tell you a tale of two billion year old cyanobacteria, primordial ammonia, and volcanic outgassing. But since your question wasn't asked in good faith, you would just respond to my efforts with an insult.

So, no answer. I can't say I am shocked that a diaper soiling leftist halfwit cannot answer a basic question. ;)
 
Back
Top