The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing?Some initial thoughts:* God would not constitute an explanation, since God counts as something.* Indeed, if anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for.* This last consideration makes the question look unanswerable. To explain my thinking, consider that a question beginning "Why ..." invites an answer describing some thing which is an antecedent cause, or at least something with a sort of family resemblance to an antecedent cause.* Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't.My own opinion is that the question is unanswerable, and indeed can only be asked because the English language allows us to talk nonsense. This view does not satisfy me in the slightest, but as I am in the habit of saying, being hungry does not prove that we have bread.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "- Why is there something rather than nothing?" to topic title.

That would count as something. You don't answer the question by postulating one thing which explains everything else.

Would a state of affairs in which there was consciousness, wisdom, and intelligence be the same as a state of affairs in which there was nothing?

No.Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning on this point.

You seem very muddled.W.L.C. correctly points out that you could in principle infer God without being able to explain God. This would be an apposite answer to someone who refused to infer God solely because he couldn't explain him.I, on the other had, asked you to explain why there was something rather than nothing. As God (if he exists) is something, then in order to answer my question, you have to explain God (if he exists).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There would be nothing if there were no things.

I'm glad we sorted that out. Some people might have thought that the buck stopped at the third alphabet, but now everything's clear.

Well, give it a go. You need to find two sentences that describe such a state of affairs one of which is the negation of the other.But where are the sentences to be about?

Well, the absence of things for there to be mutually inconsistent statements about. Can there be a complete absence of unicorns in my back yard? By your reasoning, no. "Complete absence", you would tell us, "indicates a lack of a subject", and "be", you say "indicates the presence of a subject" ... so an absence of unicorns cannot be.Well then, where are the unicorns?You're just confusing yourself with grammar.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes.Look, what we need for a contradiction is a thing X and a predicate P such that P(X) & ~P(X). But if there is no X, then there is no X that fits that condition.For example, we could rule out a universe in which the following propositions were true:(1) Apples and oranges exist.
(2) Citrus fruit do not exist.... since from these propositions, plus the definition of an orange as a citrus fruit, we can logically deduce the existence of at least one entity that is a citrus fruit and is not a citrus fruit.How are we going to do that sort of thing when the nonexistence of things is our premise? Well, it's English.There is a complete absence of unicorns = There are not any unicorns.And in the same way:There is a complete absence of things = There are not any things.The grammatical structure of the phrase in English doesn't really cast any light on its meaning or its possibility.

It conceals Dawkins' meaning; and it conceals that Craig is snipping random pieces out of Dawkins' argument and pretending that he is summarizing Dawkins' argument. Dawkins distinguishes between two types of explanation for things, which he calls "cranes" and "skyhooks". He argues that "cranes" are probable and "skyhooks" are improbable; and he argues that God is a "skyhook". Craig rips out this aspect of Dawkins' argument, changes "crane" to "explanation" so that you can't tell that there's a massive chunk of argument missing, and then complains that "the atheistic conclusion [...] seems to come suddenly out of left field" and that "that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements" and goes on to refer to "the six steps of Dawkins' argument" as though Dawkins' argument did in fact consist of the six "steps" ripped out of context and re-written by Craig.This seems to me to be dishonesty, but it could merely be idiocy. Or maybe a bit of both.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If he just wanted to say: "Here are six things Dawkins said that are wrong for the following reasons ..." he would not be obligated to summarize Dawkins' entire argument. But instead, he pretends that these six things are Dawkins' entire argument and then complains that the conclusion doesn't follow from them.I think he is kinda not obligated to do this.And then he has the gall to write this: So it would be "charitable" would it, to "assume" that these are "summary statements"? No assumption is necessary. Craig knows damn well that they are a summary. They are a summary written by William Lane Craig.Unless ... it has just struck me ... maybe Craig, instead of bothering to actually read the book, read this "summary" of Dawkins' argument written by another dumbass Christian apologist and didn't realize that what he was reading was not in fact written by Dawkins. That would also explain his behavior.

Yes. See posts #147 and #149.

Everywhere? Like the absence of unicorns?Of course, if there was no space, then everywhere and nowhere would be synonymous.

And if there was, it would be true to say: "Everywhere and at all times there is an absence of everything." The fact that these superficially look like opposites is that you are used to a situation in which space and time do exist, and your use of language reflects that.(Consider the fact that in logic it is correct to say both that all unicorns are pink and that no unicorns are pink --- so long as unicorns don't exist.)Like Catholic Scientist, you are tacitly taking the syntax and semantics of the English language to be significant to the question. But it really isn't. It would not in fact be self-contradictory for there to be no time or no space.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.