The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?

quote:

---

An unsupported claim ("there's no reason") isn't an answer to the question "why is it a fact that there's something rather than nothing".

---

Of course it isn't unsupported at all, because I supported it right back at the start of the thread. But even if you were right about the lack of support that it would not disqualify it as a possible answer. Indeed what you are saying is that an answer not shown to be true cannot possibly be true which is obviously fallacious.

quote:

---

That relies on your dubious reading of what I said, which was that "necessity could only be demonstrated in the context of the something world", which, to me, implies pretty much this

---

In which case I have to ask whether you are being stupid or just trolling. In fact your version of the "nothing world" IS logically impossible from your own arguments. That is one of the reasons I regard your reading as wrong.

quote:

---

In other words, the O.P. version cannot be answered by "necessity", which requires a necessary thing(s).

---

Do you really fail to understand the difference between am argument and an answer ? Or the difference between an assumption and a supported conclusion ? Proposing necessity as a possible answer is not an argument and so can't beg the question. A successful argument that something necessarily existed would make that a conclusion not an assumption.

quote:

---

I think we both assume that abstracts don't exist in the absence of something concrete. "Necessity", therefore, cannot apply in the "null world" of the O.P. question, although it can in Leibniz's modified version.

---

My view is somewhat different. However it is irrelevant, because if it truly were necessary that something exist the null world could not exist anyway. Unless you assume that the "nothing world" is basic - and you say that you don't - the objection can't arise.

quote:

---

I missed the "disproof".

---

You didn't see the possible answers ? Odd when you seem quite desperate to dismiss them.

quote:

---

My reading is common. And it doesn't make the non-existence of all things impossible.

---

I'm afraid that it does. Since you keep invoking the existence of abstracts in it, and insist that they count as "things" (even while insisting that those abstracts can't exist) the contradiction is obvious.

quote:

---

I'm pointing out that the question precludes possible answers. "Something" answers invariably assume the something world.

---

An objection which only rules out the answers I have offered if you assume that the "nothing world" is basic and the "something world" must arise from it. Do you make that assumption ? It is not in the question.

quote:

---

When I describe the question as unanswerable, I mean that we cannot provide what it asks for (the reason why there's something rather than nothing). When you give the opinion that there is no reason, you have not answered the question in this sense. Indeed, you've said "there isn't a reason, and therefore no answer".

---

Of course you are wrong. THe only answers ruled out are those that rely on some prior "something". Neither logical necessity or brute facts rely on any prior something, thus they are legitimate answers. Even asserting that there is no reason is an answer to the question.

quote:

---

Why do you disagree with the conclusion that the question is unanswerable (not to mention the implication that the question is nonsense)?

---

Because I have shown both statements to be incorrect.

quote:

---

That assumption is certainly not necessary. I'm pointing out that you cannot assume "somethingness" in order to answer the question "why is there somethingness rather than nothingness?".

---

Again you are confusing arguments with conclusions. An argument that there must be something cannot rely on simply assuming that there is something. An answer may assume it, or even use the fact that we know that there is something.

quote:

---

This just means that you are using "answerability" in a different way than I am (and the O.P. is). But let's try it, anyway.

---

I use answerability to mean that the question can be answered. How do you use it ?

quote:

---

"Why is there a logical necessity for something, rather than nothing?"

---

Whoever said that there are no stupid questions should see that one. Now THERE is a nonsense question.

quote:

---

"Why is it a fact without reason that there is something rather than nothing?"

---

And there's another one.You're not making any valid point here, at all.

quote:

---

If you want to show the points made in the O.P. to be incorrect, shouldn't you do so using Adequate's definition of "answerable"?

---

If you are going to appeal to odd definitions of "answerable" then maybe you should produce them ?

quote:

---

Do you? "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asks for the reason that there is something rather than nothing. Do you agree?

​

"There is no reason" is a reply, but it does not provide the questioner with the answer he has asked for. It merely states a view that the question is invalid. And you're the one who keeps insisting that it is an important question!

---

I don't agree that saying that something exists for no reason fails to answer the question, nor that it isn't important to know the fuller version of that answer, including what it is that just exists and even if I did, logical necessity would still be a valid answer.

quote:

---

If a "logical necessity" is something, then the question applies to it. If a "logical necessity" is not something, then it can't exist.

---

Which just shows how silly dragging abstracts into the discussion is again. It leads you into confusion and nonsense.

quote:

---

Can you answer it? Do you mean it's unanswerable? Your "brute fact" is something that is subject to the O.P. question, just like everything else.

---

The question is logically incoherent and therefore nonsense.

quote:

---

I'm trying to explain to you why many philosophers have dismissed the O.P. question as unanswerable. Do you think that I'm the only person who expects the answer to a question to match what it's asking for?

---

Well, you are failing miserably. I would say that the real reason is the problem in finding the true answer, not that there cannot be an answer since we know that to be false.

quote:

---

Indeed, I'm failing to convince the likes of you and IamJoseph that the O.P. question cannot be answered by anything (any-thing). I'm not using the word "answer" in the sense of "reply". No-one would describe anything as "unanswerable" in that sense, because all questions can be replied to. Therefore, it should have been obvious to you that the O.P. is using "unanswerable" in a sense that actually means something.

---

And as I have pointed out, logical necessity would still be a valid answer even by the restrictions you impose. All you have managed in response to that is to show how foolish it is to use a wide sense of "thing" which includes abstractions in understanding the question. Which nicely supports my point regarding proper understanding of the question, but does no good to your case whatsoever.