|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So where is the inconsistency then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Requiring "nothing" to be a thing that has the capacity for being. Who says "nothing" has to be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Before you can insist that nothingness is a state of being you first need to define both "nothing" and what it means to "exist" (or be).
Good frikkin luck with that......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think the whole thing is pretty meaningless personally.
But it is fun to talk bollocks sometimes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
BC writes: Where in that sentence does Dr. Craig claim that he is quoting directly? He claims to be summarising correctly. But his summary is a straw man. That is the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So - The question boils down to:
Why does any form of reality exist rather than absolutely nothing at all? Is that what you are saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Bluegenes writes: Maybe I'm asking: How can absolutely nothing ever be an alternative reality to this "something reality" when an any alternative reality is itself something, not nothing. Well I am glad we cleared that up Is absolute nothingness an "alternative reality"....? I would have thought absolute nothingness would be no reality at all?
bluegenes writes: There's a distinct possibility that I'm not really saying anything at all, because that problem is inherent on a thread on which we're literally trying to talk about nothing. Indeed. And now we are possibly disagreeing about nothing too. This topic is a complete headfuck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
In message 150 of this thread, Black Cat summarizes what he considers to be his key point. It goes as follows:
Do you see any problem with the above?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
And what suggested to you that it was intended to be an accurate summary of what you wrote?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Possibly........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
And certainty too.....?
I guess.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So what would we call the absence of even the possibility of any states of reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Skyhooks and cranes are terms coined by philosopher Dan Dennett
Dennett uses the term "skyhook" to describe a source of design complexity that does not build on lower, simpler layersin simple terms, a miracle. Dennett contrasts theories of complexity that require such miracles with those based on "cranes", structures which permit the construction of entities of greater complexity but which are themselves founded solidly "on the ground" of physical science.
Link BC writes: I don't see how W.L.C damaged the accuracy or intent of his statement. If you could explain this to me I would appreciate it. He completely misses the central theme of the argument that some explanations are exceptionally well founded where others are not. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
BC writes: Straggler also mentioned that Dr. Craig intended to summarize. Summarize - Yes. But he gives the distinct impression that he is repeating Dawkins own summary rather than presenting his own straw man version.
Dr Craig writes: On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows: But it doesn't go as follows at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well it certainly seems paradoxical in a paradox defying sort of way.
This whole thing boils down to defining both "nothing" and the nature of existence....... If there is a more nonsense inspiring branch of philosophy than ontology then I have yet to find it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024