Nothing?

 Nothing does not exist, when applied within the concepts of cosmology, at least within our experience. Consequently, saying something cannot come from nothing makes no sense. No, something must have always existed for there to be a something.

Necessary and Contingent Existence

 

1. Necessary and Contingent Existence

The argument relies upon a distinction between how something—an existent—can exist necessarily or contingently.[5]

Sadly, it seems the world could have existed without you or me in it. So, we exist contingently. The same also seems true of tables, cats, this essay, and the rest of the physical universe. These things can and do exist, but they need not have.

Contingent things, Avicenna thinks, have essences or natures that do not guarantee their existence.[6] This is true of you and me: after all, lots of possible humans do not exist![7] Contingent things require something to cause and sustain their existence.[8]

A ‘necessary existent’ would have an essence that guarantees its existence. If so, then that entity’s existence is uncaused, and its continued existence depends upon nothing.[9] Avicenna calls such a thing ‘necessary-in-itself.’[10]

NOTE: The above is the part of the philosophy of an Islamic Philosopher named by westerners as Avicenna. The essay is at Avicenna’s ‘Proof’ for the Existence of God - 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Recognizing Conscious Others

 According to most philosophers, we recognize consciousness in others in two ways: 1-their bodies are physiologically similar to ours, and 2. functionally similar (behaviorally) to ours. We all agree that such relies on superficial observation. Other than in a scientific environment, we have little time to ascertain consciousness in others. Have you never seen someone curse at a malfunctioning candy dispensing machine as if the machine will feel bad and do better in he future?

God Exists?

The God most scientists believe exists is most likely not the God of most religions. More probably not necessarily an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God, possibly not even a thinking God.

 

The argument for - #1:
1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.
– which is what everybody means by ‘God’.
Not so sure - #1:
The error in logic is that every contingent thing has an explanation of existence. This is solely our human experience. Sort of a causality thing that applies within our infinitesimally minuscule surroundings. What if there exist elsewhere in the universe or even other universes wherein contingent things can and do come from nothing?

The argument for - #2:
1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
Not so sure - #2
Again, causality, which is certainly apparent, would dictate a transcendent cause. If there is a cause, it certainly isn't obvious. If humanity is the reason for the universe, why so much more than just the Earth and humans? And really? Is the whole evolution thing really needed.

The argument for - #3
We can summarize this argument as follows:
1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Not so sure - #3

Because

Humanity is stuck in a "because" loop. Our experience of most events is that they are effects of particular causes. Whenever whatever happens, we seek the cause and in most cases we logically attribute one or more causes to a high degree of satisfaction, wherein such becomes common knowledge. Because we are so grounded in it, when we happen upon an effect for which there is no logical cause, we invent one. The concept of supernatural beings (religion, if you will) was invented to satisfy many mysterious effects, and such became common knowledge within the various cultures. The advance of science, while often weak in explaining why given us considerable insight into how and what as causes. "Because" demands an answer to why. There are many theories of the what of consciousness. If we should develop evidence to prove one of them as true, we are still a long way from understanding why we even have consciousness. And who or what intended it to be so.

Time

 Consider that time IS change and motion including entropy and not an independent natural property. Without matter, there is no time. Cosmologically, I theorize that the universe has always been, possibly in various forms, including a void. In a void there, of course, would be no matter and thus, no change and no time. Causality and entropy, basic elements of change and motion, arrived with the advent of matter either during inflation before the Big Bang or if there was no inflation, at the Big Bang. 

 Read: https://aeon.co/essays/philosophers-must-reckon-with-the-meaning-of-thermodynamics?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=43d4b3bd26-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_08_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-4ef8a26106-73343035

Evil

 A recent contemplation: is evil the bottom half of good in that it evolves from the lack of or decrease of good, or does it stand alone upon its own strength in opposition or ignorance of good? From a psychological viewpoint, it could be a mental illness, social conditioning, trauma, or moral development failures.