|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: If nothing is not a thing then there is no need for it to exist as such. Right. So wouldn't "why existence" be a better unanswerable question than the one in the O.P. which seems to imply that nothing could "be"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'd say that "why existence?" is worse because it is even harder to understand. "Why do things exist?" is better than that. There are two things that tilt me in favour of the original formulation. Firstly, it is explicit about the possibility of nothingness, secondly it is already well-known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Stephen Hawking writes:
Stephen Hawking: God did not create the Universe | Daily Mail Online Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
So there the anwser hy there is something rather then nothing. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I forgot an earlier question you asked about reality, because someone had said something like "nothing would be the state of reality". I'd say that all adjectives, including real, would have to be irrelevant to true nothingness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
frako quoting Hawkin writes: Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. Spontaneous creation is something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Then you cannot consider reality to be a thing. "Reality" would be abstract, akin to " truth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
nope it is nothing until it happens
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Panda writes:
I didn't claim that he did intend to quote Dawkins diectly. Panda writes:
Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Panda writes:
This is a statement about the intentions of Dr. Craig. You can see this from the use of the word 'intend'.
I didn't claim that he did intend to quote Dawkins directly. Panda writes:
This is a statement about what Dr. Craig actually did. Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly. - It is no surprise that you think that Dr. Craig's summary of Dawkin's list is accurate: your grasp of English is not good enough to know any better. I also notice that you have been unable to argue against Dr. A's detailed description of some of Dr. Craig's deceit (Message 161). Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Panda writes:
Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly. Panda writes:
This is a statement about what Dr. Craig actually did. Since Dr. Craig actually did claim he was quoting directly, can you please show me where that is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Message 151 Since Dr. Craig actually did claim he was quoting directly, can you please show me where that is? As Dr. A showed (in Message 161), Dr. Craig also acted as if he had quoted directly.Any ambiguity you try to claim exists in Dr. Craig's opening sentence is removed by his actions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Panda writes:
As Dr. A showed (in Message 161), Dr. Craig also acted as if he had quoted directly. We aren't discussing whether he acted as if he had quoted directly. We are discussing whether he did actually claim he was quoting directly. Again I'll ask, where did Dr. Craig actually claim he was quoting directly? Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Ok - I'll spell it out...
Again I'll ask, where did Dr. Craig actually claim he was quoting directly? . I don't see any ambiguity in:
Dr. Craig writes:
It is Dr. Craig claiming that he is quoting Dawkins directly.
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows: . Only you see ambiguity in that sentence (Message 152):
Black Cat writes: From the introductory sentence it doesn't seem clear whether his intention was to quote directly or to summarize. . But any ambiguity you try to claim exists in Dr. Craig's opening sentence is completely removed by his actions.Dr. Craig acted as if he had quoted Dawkins directly. (Some of these actions have been described by Dr. A in Message 161.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
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: Panda writes:
It is Dr. Craig claiming that he is quoting Dawkins directly. No it's not. He cites Dawkins' work but he does not indicate that he intends to quote any part of Dawkins' book directly. For the third time I'll ask, where did Dr. Craig actually claim he was quoting directly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
(Bolding is mine)
Black Cat writes: No it's not. He cites Dawkins' work but he does not indicate that he intends to quote any part of Dawkins' book directly. Black Cat writes: From the introductory sentence it doesn't seem clear whether his intention was to quote directly or to summarize. You seem to disagree with yourself. {abe}
Black Cat writes:
For the third time, I'll answer:
For the third time I'll ask, where did Dr. Craig actually claim he was quoting directly? 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: Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024