Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 10:28 PM
23 online now:
dwise1, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
202122
23
2425Next
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 558 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 331 of 366 (630209)
08-23-2011 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 7:09 PM


Re: Another week; and yet more of nothing.
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 7:09 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 1:21 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1749 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 332 of 366 (630210)
08-23-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by bluegenes
08-23-2011 1:09 AM


Re: Another week; and yet more of nothing.
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 1:09 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 333 of 366 (630211)
08-23-2011 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by bluegenes
08-23-2011 1:05 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 1:05 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 2:37 AM PaulK has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 558 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 334 of 366 (630214)
08-23-2011 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by PaulK
08-23-2011 1:30 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
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"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 1:30 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 2:47 AM bluegenes has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 335 of 366 (630215)
08-23-2011 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by bluegenes
08-23-2011 2:37 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
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 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 2:37 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 3:37 AM PaulK has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 558 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 336 of 366 (630218)
08-23-2011 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by PaulK
08-23-2011 2:47 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 2:47 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2011 8:55 AM bluegenes has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1749 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 337 of 366 (630224)
08-23-2011 5:08 AM


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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Panda, posted 08-23-2011 5:43 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 340 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 6:12 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1794 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 338 of 366 (630227)
08-23-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by IamJoseph
08-23-2011 5:08 AM


IamJoseph writes:

A finite universe allows no pre-existing energy, forces, tools, elements or substances.


...or gods.

Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 5:08 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 6:02 AM Panda has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1749 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 339 of 366 (630229)
08-23-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Panda
08-23-2011 5:43 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Panda, posted 08-23-2011 5:43 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Taq, posted 08-23-2011 11:48 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 558 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 340 of 366 (630231)
08-23-2011 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by IamJoseph
08-23-2011 5:08 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 5:08 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 6:20 AM bluegenes has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1749 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 341 of 366 (630232)
08-23-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by bluegenes
08-23-2011 6:12 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 6:12 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 7:51 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 558 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 342 of 366 (630240)
08-23-2011 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by IamJoseph
08-23-2011 6:20 AM


He's a real nowhere creator in his nowhere land doing nothing
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 6:20 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 8:53 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1749 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 343 of 366 (630243)
08-23-2011 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by bluegenes
08-23-2011 7:51 AM


Re: He's a real nowhere creator in his nowhere land doing nothing
non-existent "pre-universe".

This is incumbent with a finite universe. Its not subject to sarcasm or rididule - you are evading the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 7:51 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 344 of 366 (630244)
08-23-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by bluegenes
08-23-2011 3:37 AM


Re: Unanswerability.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by bluegenes, posted 08-23-2011 3:37 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by bluegenes, posted 08-24-2011 12:06 AM PaulK has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 345 of 366 (630260)
08-23-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by IamJoseph
08-23-2011 6:02 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 6:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by IamJoseph, posted 08-23-2011 7:12 PM Taq has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
202122
23
2425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019