Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[datc]

"Good" is a subjective term, what is good to you might be evil or bad to another.

It's considerably more complicated than this, which is why I am not opening this can of worms. Whatever is good, God is first cause of it.

... In other words, there would be an evil in God which the creation would help remedy; and therefore, the creation would spring from something evil rather than from something good.

And why would you suggest this is not the reality, especially when bible claims God created humans to worship him? And most other major religions also suggest a similar reason for creation....

Because then the chain of teleological causation does not terminate.

If God is not perfectly happy, then He must ipso facto be striving for an end. In physical causation, the cause is prior in time to the effect; in teleological causation, it is the reverse: the effect, action, is prior to the cause, anticipated satisfaction of a desire in the future, when the action has borne fruit. Expected future utility triggers action in the present.

God is "Alpha" as in first in the order of physical causes, and "Omega" as in last in the order of teleological causes. But if God, too, is dissatisfied and seeking some good, then there is a state of affairs better than God. Moreover, God is not omnipotent, since He cannot remove his sorrow instantly and at one stroke. But then everything is forever seeking something, never arriving to full enjoyment of it. There is endless becoming. But then we can no longer say that man finds complete rest in God, because God, too, is discontented and therefore changing. As a result, the number of ends being sought is actually infinite, which is impossible.

God created humans so that they can seek and find happiness, not for any external to those humans ends, such as worship. A person's final cause, i.e., the reason why he exists, his life's purpose, is within him, and that is his own happiness.

Also going by your definition, goodness is something I can think of, so it has to be outside that set too, along with all other emotions and mental constructs.

Since goodness is beyond being, it cannot be known or understood; but it can be judged to be good.

Earth is a planet.
Big bang is not a universe.
And both earth and universe has "formed" from a different form of existence and will be destroyed, that is converted to a different form of existence eventually, that doesn't violate the law of conservation.

I already explained that "Earth" is just the name I gave to our universe, the actual world, not our planet.

Yes, matter can change from one form into another; e.g., a craftsman puts together many different types of materials to build a house. But matter-energy itself is imperishable. Regardless, I assume the universe to be everlasting to grant the atheists their best case.

---

There cannot exist an actually infinite number of real objects (as opposed to ideal objects like abstracta like numbers, sets, or possible worlds).

I don't buy that. But even if that were true, that's not the same as a infinite chain of causes.

I'm sad to hear you deny something so obvious. The quantity of real objects is measured by actual numbers. But "infinity" is a mathematical abstraction; it's not number.

It is the same as an infinite chain of causes, because each cause is a real object.