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?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 136 of 366 (625908)
07-26-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2011 11:42 AM


Is Being something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:03 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 366 (625910)
07-26-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
07-26-2011 11:57 AM


Is Being something?
No, its a verb... which requires a subject, which *is* a thing, which "nothing" cannot be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 11:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 12:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 138 of 366 (625911)
07-26-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2011 12:03 PM


So where is the inconsistency then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:09 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 366 (625913)
07-26-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
07-26-2011 12:05 PM


Requiring "nothing" to be a thing that has the capacity for being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 12:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 140 of 366 (625914)
07-26-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2011 12:09 PM


CS writes:
Requiring "nothing" to be a thing that has the capacity for being.
Who says "nothing" has to be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:23 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 366 (625916)
07-26-2011 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Straggler
07-26-2011 12:16 PM


Who says "nothing" has to be?
Its implicit in the question, itself.
Why is something being rather than nothing being...
Because nothing can't be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 12:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 12:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 142 of 366 (625917)
07-26-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2011 12:23 PM


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......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:30 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 366 (625918)
07-26-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Straggler
07-26-2011 12:26 PM


The question insists it.
But oh well, I was asking the OP to support their assertion that it is consistant so I'm not too worried about supporting the position that it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 12:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 12:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 144 of 366 (625921)
07-26-2011 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2011 12:30 PM


I think the whole thing is pretty meaningless personally.
But it is fun to talk bollocks sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 145 of 366 (626017)
07-26-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2011 10:37 AM


Why not?
That's the route I'd take...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 366 (626052)
07-26-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dr Adequate
07-26-2011 7:02 PM


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?
I was more interested in your reason for saying it isn't.
But here you go:
'No-thing' is indicating a lack of a subject. The verb "to be" is indicating the presence of a subject.
Nothing cannot be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2011 7:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2011 11:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 147 of 366 (626066)
07-26-2011 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2011 8:54 PM


I was more interested in your reason for saying it isn't.
Well, the absence of things for there to be mutually inconsistent statements about.
I was more interested in your reason for saying it isn't.
But here you go:
'No-thing' is indicating a lack of a subject. The verb "to be" is indicating the presence of a subject.
Nothing cannot be.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2011 8:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2011 10:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 366 (626119)
07-27-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Adequate
07-26-2011 11:06 PM


quote:
* 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.
I was more interested in your reason for saying it isn't.
Well, the absence of things for there to be mutually inconsistent statements about.
Huh? That didn't make any sense. Can you phrase that differently?
We're talking about "nothing" existing That don't make no sense!
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?
There are not any unicorns being in your backyard. But 'an absense of unicorns' doesn't exist in your backyard. That's nonsensical, imho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2011 11:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2011 6:04 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 149 of 366 (626207)
07-27-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by New Cat's Eye
07-27-2011 10:09 AM


Huh? That didn't make any sense. Can you phrase that differently?
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?
There are not any unicorns being in your backyard. But 'an absense of unicorns' doesn't exist in your backyard. That's nonsensical, imho.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2011 10:09 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 150 of 366 (626603)
07-30-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Panda
07-21-2011 3:27 PM


It doesn't appear to me that W.L.C mis-represented Dawkins. He was summarizing Dawkins' arguments not quoting him directly. Can you please explain to me how how Craig's summarization sentence affected or distorted what Dawkins actually wrote? Is it because he didn't include the words "so far"?
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 3:27 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 1:51 PM Black Cat has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024