|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Time, like space, and anything contained in this uni, is post-uni. A finite cannot contain an infinite component. So why do you use the expression "pre-universe" and describe it as being "prior" to the universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
If you mean pre and prior subscribe to time, then you make a good point. There is simply no other way to put it due to the limitations of language and thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: Because I have shown both statements to be incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: 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. 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?". Whatever we present as "necessary", quantum fluctuations, god, or whatever, would be subject to the question. As in: Why are there quantum fluctuations rather than nothing? PaulK writes: THe only answers ruled out are those that rely on some prior "something.... Here, you seem to agree.
PaulK writes: 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. 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. "Why is there a logical necessity for something, rather than nothing?" "Why is it a fact without reason that there is something rather than nothing?" In your sense, the reply "the question is unanswerable" could itself be regarded as an answer.
PaulK writes: Because I have shown both statements to be incorrect. 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: I use answerability to mean that the question can be answered. How do you use it ?
quote: Whoever said that there are no stupid questions should see that one. Now THERE is a nonsense question.
quote: And there's another one. You're not making any valid point here, at all.
quote: If you are going to appeal to odd definitions of "answerable" then maybe you should produce them ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Paulk writes: I use answerability to mean that the question can be answered. How do you use it ? 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!
PaulK writes: Whoever said that there are no stupid questions should see that one. Now THERE is a nonsense question. If a "logical necessity" is something, then the question applies to it. If a "logical necessity" is not something, then it can't exist.
PaulK writes: bluegenes writes: "Why is it a fact without reason that there is something rather than nothing?" And there's another one. 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.
PK writes: If you are going to appeal to odd definitions of "answerable" then maybe you should produce them ? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Re Why is there something rather than nothing?
The reason I say there is no alternative to creationism [a universe maker for a unuverse] is thus: 1. The universe is finite. Which is open to only that it was made possible by an external, pre-dating source. A finite universe allows no pre-existing energy, forces, tools, elements or substances. 2. Science has no alternative scenario. Can anyone say why the above is not impacting, and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
...or gods. A finite universe allows no pre-existing energy, forces, tools, elements or substances.Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The problem is we have a book which introduced a universe changing paradigm called creationism, namely a universe created by a singular, infinite and omnipotent universe maker; this at the least theoretically resolves the issue what can precede the universe - as opposed to a NO ANSWER.
The need for proof cannot apply here - it is neutralized by its antithesis also having no proof; thus only the sound premise applies. Creationism is a 100% sound premise of only two possibilities applying: YES OR NO CREATOR; it is also a scientific premise [cause & effect], open to no other possibilities or valid alternatives. All this is of course only applicable based on an absolutely finite universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Re Why is there something rather than nothing?The reason I say there is no alternative to creationism [a universe maker for a unuverse] is thus:... Joe, if your god isn't something, he doesn't exist. Think again: Why is there something rather than nothing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Again, 'THING' is a thing or some thing in this universe; this universe never existed once - including any things now in it.
Once, we could not detect and see virus, radiation and radar, these never even constituted as a thing once; yet they existed. Our mind's wiring is thus limited and conditional to bits of knowledge which fall on our laps periodically, and often alter all previous premises. I find the arguements against a universe maker deficient, both scientifically and from a sound premise; the path of correct thought definitely leans on the creator factor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: I find the arguements against a universe maker deficient, both scientifically and from a sound premise; the path of correct thought definitely leans on the creator factor. Is this the creator who doesn't exist in a non-existent "pre-universe" which isn't "prior" to anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
non-existent "pre-universe".
This is incumbent with a finite universe. Its not subject to sarcasm or rididule - you are evading the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: Which just shows how silly dragging abstracts into the discussion is again. It leads you into confusion and nonsense.
quote: The question is logically incoherent and therefore nonsense.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The problem is we have a book which introduced a universe changing paradigm called creationism, namely a universe created by a singular, infinite and omnipotent universe maker; this at the least theoretically resolves the issue what can precede the universe - as opposed to a NO ANSWER. 2,000 years ago, this was true for many questions. Supernatural forces were used to explain the path of the Sun in the sky, why water boils, the fermentation of wine, and lightning. How did that turn out? It would seem to me that the God-of-the-Gaps approach has been a spectacular failure throughout history, so why are you relying on it once again?
The need for proof cannot apply here - it is neutralized by its antithesis also having no proof; No proof equals no explanation. Period.
Creationism is a 100% sound premise . . . False. It is backed by zero evidence, therefore it is the opposite of sound. Even worse, asserting supernatural forces in the absence of an explanation has proved to be a very poor way of finding answers.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024