|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4642 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Am I not allowed to reply to one of Dr A's initial thoughts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Wow. Where does he "mis-quote-mine" Dawkins? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4642 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
If you're going to say he mis-quote-mined Dawkins, don't you have to show how he did so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4642 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
I have The God Delusion in front of me. If you're going to say he mis-quote-mined Dawkins, don't you have to show how he did so?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 part written by Richard Dawkins makes sense when it hasn't been quoted out of context. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024