>>12633329Let us consider this logically. It appears that that the options are
1) It happened for no reason
2) It happened for a reason
3) It didn't happen that way
If (3) then it seems logical to assume that the Universe has always existed, in which case it
4) It exists for no reason
5) It exists for a reason
As (4) and (5) are essentially the same as (1) and (2) I think we can safely discount inquiry into those options as being equivalent.
Now the key word here is 'reason". In this sense it means some aspect of nature, lets call it a force, which requires something to happen as a natural consequence. I am not invoking something like a God as a "reason"' other than by making "God" equivalent to a law of nature.
Now the problem with "a reason" in this sense is that it assumes a state before existence where a natural force could cause the Universe to pop into existence. However that implies there existed a prior Universe where such a force could reside and wait patiently just for the opportunity to make the big bang happen. This is obviously a contradiction at worse, or begets a chicken and egg situation at best.
Therefore, logically we can safely conclude the Universe happened for no reason. Therefore we can conclude that non existence happened before the big bang and that the big bang happened for no reason at all.
OH FUCK MY FUCKING BRAIN CANT HANDLE THAT! FUCK! FUCK! I AM ALIVE! I LOOK OUT THE BEDROOM WINDOW AT NIGHT AND SEE STARS! I THINK AND I FEEL! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
It was God. Okay? Okay. Fixed. Next question?
