Jim Holt (philosopher). (№ 427909)

Today, in answers to the question "Why does something exist and not Nothing?" thinkers were divided into three camps. The "optimists" argue that there must be a reason why the world exists, and that we are quite capable of discovering it. "Pessimists" believe that there must be a reason why the world exists, but we can never know for sure - perhaps because the part of the world available to us is too small to find a reason, or because the reason lies outside of what is available to the human mind, which nature has created for survival, and not for penetration into the inner structure of the cosmos. And, finally, the "deniers" insist that there is no reason for the existence of the world, and therefore the question itself does not make sense. Let's assume you are an optimist. What is the most promising approach to the mystery of being? Traditional, who considers a god-like essence to be a necessary source of the emergence and existence of all things? Or a scientist who uses the ideas of quantum cosmology to explain how the universe made its leap, emerging from the void? A purely philosophical approach that tries to deduce the reason for the existence of the world from abstract reasoning about values or from the absolute impossibility of non-being? Some kind of mystical approach that seeks to get an answer through insight? Nowadays, all these approaches have their supporters and, at first glance, seem to merit attention. Indeed, only by examining the mystery of being from all possible sides, we can hope to find some kind of answer.