/lit/ - Literature

>>11108700

> there must be something to explain why the Universe exists

We can't conceive that something exists without an explanation, true. We also can't conceive of something that absolutely explains itself. This is a dilemma that we invite when we try to violate our own finite mental abilities, seduced by the idea that if we can seek explanations for natural objects then we can also seek an explanation for nature *itself.*

All of the terminology used to supposedly conceive of a self-explaining being is taken from our understanding of the natural universe. But this can't at all teach us about what is supposedly independent of the universe; whether by negation or analogy, the result is empty. This parasitism upon the terminology of the natural universe should indicate that the domain of explanations is the domain of nature, and when we attempt to leave nature behind and explore some other domain of being, we are thereby attempting to leave explanation behind, and thus we would have no tools to explore with.

Instead, if we continue with the laws of explanation used for nature, our explanations will always be continuous with the natural world, our inferences will never take us to some domain apart from the universe. We can't have it both ways.

> the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist

I don't see why nothingness is a viable alternative. What are you conceiving of when you conceive of non-existence? Can it be described?

If a mental procedure yields a non-understandable result, then this should indicate that the procedure is flawed.

Note the similar results when we try to conceive of nothingness and when we try to conceive of a self-explaining being. In each case, what are we thinking of?