Open MInd writes:
why did the nothing turn into something? My oppinion is that a "nothing" does not have a choice in the matter. Being nothing, it does not have any capabilities and it will do only nothing.
You have a strange notion of the meaning of the word 'nothing'. How can you even consider the question "why did the nothing turn into something?", or say something like "being nothing [...] it will do only nothing."? "
The nothing"? What nothing? This nothing? Or that nothing over there? And what's this about "being nothing"? And "it will do only nothing"? Nothing is an
it? Is there something sitting around somewhere, occupied with the sole task of
being and doing nothing?
Can you see the absurdness of thinking about 'nothing' in this way? It suggests that 'nothing' is something that
exists. But that is utterly absurd. 'Nothing' is the very
opposite of existence. You can't talk about 'nothing' as if it's a thing. 'Nothing' is the complete absence of things.
I don't think it is logical for the scientists to dismiss this question. If no why can be thought of than the scientific theories are not complete, and the religions that answer this question will be more credible than science.
As yet, humans are still the only ones we know who entertain the concept of "why", not only in the sense of physical reasons for certain phenomena, but also in the sense of whether or not there is intention, or meaning, behind existence. On earth, billions of years have gone by without any creature ever asking "why all this?". Then humans evolved, and with them, intentionality. Humans have intentions, and that's why it's natural for us to ask "why?".
But we shouldn't project our intentionality on the world outside us without any good reason for doing so. The naked fact that
we have intentions doesn't mean that this notion can be mapped to an aspect of reality outside the human condition.
If science doesn't come up with an answer for the why question, it might mean that scientific theory - or rather human knowledge - is incomplete, but it may also mean that there
is no answer because the question is invalid. And if the question is invalid, then the answers that religions come up with notwithstanding, must be nonsense.
Asking why the world exists may be akin to asking about the colour of wednesday. Ask scientists and they will not be able to answer the question. If you then turn to religions and one says "green", another "red", and yet another "yellow", how does that make these religions more credible than science?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2