Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 61 of 366 (625111)
07-21-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by bluegenes
07-21-2011 12:40 PM


Am I not allowed to reply to one of Dr A's initial thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2011 12:40 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2011 1:14 PM Black Cat has replied
 Message 71 by Stile, posted 07-21-2011 2:33 PM Black Cat has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 62 of 366 (625113)
07-21-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Black Cat
07-21-2011 12:34 PM


Black Cat writes:
Where does he "mis-quote-mine" Dawkins?
Wow.
You can't even respond to a whole sentence.
The Mis-Quote-Mining is the part that Dr. Craig claims is summarised by Richard Dawkins.
All of it.
But this is off topic.
Edited by Panda, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 12:34 PM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 1:16 PM Panda has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 366 (625114)
07-21-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Black Cat
07-21-2011 12:51 PM


Black Cat writes:
Am I not allowed to reply to one of Dr A's initial thoughts?
Yes. But have you understood them? He's asking "why is there something rather than nothing". The part you replied to was his explanation that the question, fairly obviously, cannot be answered by evoking a thing of any kind as an explanation.
What you quoted from W. L. Craig was about a design inference not having to explain the designer. But Adequate's question cannot be explained by design, because design is something.
The state of there being something rather than nothing cannot be explained by any thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 12:51 PM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 1:32 PM bluegenes has replied

Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 64 of 366 (625116)
07-21-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Panda
07-21-2011 12:53 PM


If you're going to say he mis-quote-mined Dawkins, don't you have to show how he did so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 12:53 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 3:27 PM Black Cat has replied

Black Cat
Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days)
Posts: 28
From: Canada
Joined: 07-21-2011


Message 65 of 366 (625118)
07-21-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluegenes
07-21-2011 1:14 PM


I was responding to Dr A's initial thought because it was faulty. One doesn't need an explanation of the explanation for it to be the best explantion. Therefore, God answers the question why there is something rather than nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2011 1:14 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 1:50 PM Black Cat has not replied
 Message 69 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 PM Black Cat has not replied
 Message 82 by Dr Jack, posted 07-22-2011 4:17 AM Black Cat has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 66 of 366 (625121)
07-21-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AZPaul3
07-21-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Undefined
And as for your clients? Thank you. We would appreciate that.
Done.
So, what is "nothing"? I guess there are layers upon layers of concepts that may be thought of as "nothing", but all of which to me, as a theoretical physicist, are certainly "something". To me, "nothing" is absence of existence. But I don't even understand what I mean by that, as I don't understand "existence". We have no knowledge nor experience of non-existence.
"Nothing" is something with no parameters, no properties, no asscociations - it cannot be used as a base on which to build more structure, such as the various zeros and identities of mathematics, as they are by their very nature "something" as defined by their properties.
We often spend time patiently explaining to others that there is nothing before the Big Bang (in the classical Big Bang comsology), so one cannot talk about something causing the Big bang; but we don't actually mean "nothing" - others simply walk away with an idea of a big empty space - what we mean is that "before the Big Bang" is an undefined concept. It cannot be talked about because it does not exist. Similarly with ideas concerning what is "outside" the Universe.
If this nothing is so devoid of properties, then we cannot make even trivial sounding claims such as "nothing cannot give rise to something" because to claim anything about this "nothing" you need some handle on its properties. And by its definition, it has none. Were it to have, then it would be something - that something that is defined by those properties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2011 10:48 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 366 (625122)
07-21-2011 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Black Cat
07-21-2011 1:32 PM


I was responding to Dr A's initial thought because it was faulty. One doesn't need an explanation of the explanation for it to be the best explantion. Therefore, God answers the question why there is something rather than nothing.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 1:32 PM Black Cat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 07-21-2011 8:14 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 366 (625124)
07-21-2011 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
07-21-2011 8:13 AM


there is no reasoning, i'm simply stating a fact. Or perhaps you have a definition of "nothing" of which I am unaware?
There would be nothing if there were no things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 8:13 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 2:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2011 2:54 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 69 of 366 (625125)
07-21-2011 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Black Cat
07-21-2011 1:32 PM


Black Cat writes:
I was responding to Dr A's initial thought because it was faulty. One doesn't need an explanation of the explanation for it to be the best explantion. Therefore, God answers the question why there is something rather than nothing.
It wasn't faulty. The question of why there are things rather than no things cannot be answered by evoking a thing. So you haven't actually offered an explanation.
Concentrate. A thing making other things is not an explanation of why there are things rather then no things at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 1:32 PM Black Cat has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 70 of 366 (625127)
07-21-2011 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 1:52 PM


There would be nothing if there were no things.
And "things" being? Matter, metric, topology, etc, etc?
Is nothing the thing you add these things to in order to get something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 71 of 366 (625130)
07-21-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Black Cat
07-21-2011 12:51 PM


Context
Black Cat writes:
Am I not allowed to reply to one of Dr A's initial thoughts?
You're allowed to reply to, or post, pretty much anything you can think of.
The only restriction is that you do so on-topic.
But, even if your thought is not on-topic, all you have to do is find a thread where it is on-topic, or start a new thread.
I have to admit my response to your reply would be drawing things ever further off-topic.
If you'd like to discuss why you think the universe appears designed, you can possibly fit it into the following topic:
Message 1
...if you have any input on how ID should be properly pursued (because the Proper Pursuit of ID is the theme for that thread).
You could post in this thread about how/why you think identifying design is the proper method for pursuing the ID theory/ideas.
...or you can create your very own new topic if that doesn't fit into where you would like the discussion to go.
This may seem strict, but really it's only fair.
Imagine if you started a topic on how to prove God really existed but people only talked about how God is different from Allah... you wouldn't be able to discuss what you wanted to discuss. Because this topic was started by Dr Adequate, we need to discuss what it is Dr Adequate is attempting to focus on. Really, it's only polite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 12:51 PM Black Cat has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 72 of 366 (625135)
07-21-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2011 1:52 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
There would be nothing if there were no things.
I'm beginning to think that the question actually is answerable. Non-existent things can't actually be. So, a state of "no things" cannot exist/be. Because the O.P. question asks "Why is there....", using the verb to be, the answer must be necessity for "something". By definition.
Q: "Why is there something rather than nothing".
A: There must be something because "nothing" cannot exist by definition.
If I'm right, it's interesting, because that question is common, and it would be useful to have a neat little answer.
It seems to be impossible to use the verb "to be" with "nothing" as you've done in the sentence above "there would be nothing if there were no things" without turning "nothing" into a being, and therefore something.
Perhaps true nothing just can't be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2011 1:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2011 4:50 PM bluegenes has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 73 of 366 (625145)
07-21-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Black Cat
07-21-2011 1:16 PM


Black Cat writes:
If you're going to say he mis-quote-mined Dawkins, don't you have to show how he did so?
I have The God Delusion in front of me.
Which part would you like me to show you?
{abe}
The God Delusion
It also looks like Dr. Craig ripped most of the post from R.C. Metcalf.
So he is also a plagiarist.
It makes you proud to be a christian, doesn't it.
{abe}
Dr. Craig says that Richard Dawkins writes:
The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
Richard Dawkins actually writes:
The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
The part written by Richard Dawkins makes sense when it hasn't been quoted out of context.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Black Cat, posted 07-21-2011 1:16 PM Black Cat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Black Cat, posted 07-30-2011 11:06 AM Panda has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 74 of 366 (625169)
07-21-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
07-21-2011 2:54 PM


Nothing At All
Non-existent things can't actually be. So, a state of "no things" cannot exist/be.
If I understood what cavediver said in his Message 66 above I think you may be on the right track.
Like "before the big bang" and "outside the universe" a "nothing" cannot exist because the concept does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2011 2:54 PM bluegenes has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 75 of 366 (625173)
07-21-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by IamJoseph
07-21-2011 11:15 AM


TENDENCY [relative to what experience?]
Relative to staying nothing
DIVIDE [how many initial items were there - 2 or billions?]
Zero after that it dosent matter
EQUAL [to what?]
NOTHING !!!!! as in 2+(-2) = 0
PARTS [of what?]
Parts as in space, matter energy .... .
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 11:15 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by IamJoseph, posted 07-21-2011 9:04 PM frako has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024