First, the point made about no time existing prior to the Big Bang applies just as readily to the Standard Model as it does to Hawking's newer model (which fudges math to create imaginary time and a "no boundary" version of the beginning). This new version accomplished nothing (no pun intended), because under any model it is nonsense to ask "What existed before time?" (because "before" is a temporal term, obviously). However, the question of WHY is there a universe at all? (i.e. what is the REASON?) is a perfectly fair question that should not be avoided (and is not temporally-based).
You said, "We have no prior reason to expect that 'nothing' would be a viable alternative to 'something.'" Of course we do! Our experience ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT of the time contradicts this statement.
You said, "Trying to explain 'why existence' is pointless; existence is, inherently." You're committing the taxicab fallacy. You can't just dismiss the causal principle at the point you're "ready to get out." If anything in your daily life happened out of the ordinary (like your car changed colors or someone threw a rock through your window), you would look for a sufficient REASON (because there IS one).
Finally, you said, "Explaining how existence works is the useful and meaningful goal." Um, this is useful and meaningful (I agree), but we are only able to accomplish this using a little thing called the "Law of Causality." So you're willing to use the causal principle for EVERYTHING all the way back to the beginning, but then you choose to stick your head in the sand?
sigh this is an unfortunate reply
First, the point made about no time existing prior to the Big Bang applies just as readily to the Standard Model as it does to Hawking's newer model (which fudges math to create imaginary time and a "no boundary" version of the beginning). This new version accomplished nothing (no pun intended), because under any model it is nonsense to ask "What existed before time?" (because "before" is a temporal term, obviously). However, the question of WHY is there a universe at all? (i.e. what is the REASON?) is a perfectly fair question that should not be avoided (and is not temporally-based).
You said, "We have no prior reason to expect that 'nothing' would be a viable alternative to 'something.'" Of course we do! Our experience ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT of the time contradicts this statement.
You said, "Trying to explain 'why existence' is pointless; existence is, inherently." You're committing the taxicab fallacy. You can't just dismiss the causal principle at the point you're "ready to get out." If anything in your daily life happened out of the ordinary (like your car changed colors or someone threw a rock through your window), you would look for a sufficient REASON (because there IS one).
Finally, you said, "Explaining how existence works is the useful and meaningful goal." Um, this is useful and meaningful (I agree), but we are only able to accomplish this using a little thing called the "Law of Causality." So you're willing to use the causal principle for EVERYTHING all the way back to the beginning, but then you choose to stick your head in the sand?
Once again...unfortunate.