Why is there something rather than nothing?

[JosephR]

"God" is a label that we apply to the 'great mystery of being' - our being, the nature and existence of the material universe, the 'flow of change' that will inevitably kill us as it kills all life forms, and those unknown and unknowable states that we sense, and intuit, but cannot directly experience (like infinity, and perfection). At some point, whether theist or atheist, we need to acknowledge and concede our profound ignorance and our inherent limitations before this great mystery or we will become insane. Insanity being the result of a fundamental denial of our own reality.

Agnosticism is our reality. If we proclaim ourselves to be an atheist, or a theist, it's either because we have become insane, or it's because we have chosen to believe one or the other proposition, by faith. I choose to be a theist, by faith. And as such, I seek the 'face of God' in my limited explorations of the body of scientific and philosophical information. But I remain cognizant of the fact that I may be pursuing my own bias in that regard. And that as an honest human being I must concede my own profound and inherent ignorance regarding the great mystery we refer to as "God".

I really admire your honesty you have with yourself, it's a breath of fresh air

 

[Damian]

So...a causal circle?

What causal circle?

 

[rexlunae]

What causal circle?

A being that bears the reason for its being in itself.

 

[zippy2006]

A being that bears the reason for its being in itself.

Do you believe it is possible that, at some point, absolutely nothing existed? Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of all being was one or many contingent beings?

 

[rexlunae]

Do you believe it is possible that, at some point, absolutely nothing existed?

I'm not sure. In part, it depends on what you mean my "nothing".

Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of all being was one or many contingent beings?

I don't see any problem with that. Though, I'm not sure the term "being" applies.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not sure. In part, it depends on what you mean my "nothing".

Just the standard dictionary definition. :idunno:

Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of all being was one or many contingent beings?

I don't see any problem with that. Though, I'm not sure the term "being" applies.

Ignore the term then. Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of everything that exists was one or many contingent things/existences/entities?

 

[rexlunae]

Just the standard dictionary definition. :idunno:

That's not necessarily specific enough. For instance, if we take it absolutely, the sentence "nothing exists" becomes potentially incoherent.

Ignore the term then. Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of everything that exists was one or many contingent things/existences/entities?

As I said, I don't see any problem with that.

 

[zippy2006]

That's not necessarily specific enough. For instance, if we take it absolutely, the sentence "nothing exists" becomes potentially incoherent.

Why? It is just a form of negative predication. We do it all the time. "He is blind (i.e. blindness exists)." "She is a poor cricket player." "There does not exist a komodo dragon in this room."

As I said, I don't see any problem with that.

Why not? Surely this is not the way you think in general when you come upon contingent realities.

 

[rexlunae]

Why? It is just a form of negative predication.

Because you are describing "nothing" in positive terms. Hypostatization.

We do it all the time. "He is blind (i.e. blindness exists)." "She is a poor cricket player."

But "He" and "She" are real things that you can describe.

"There does not exist a komodo dragon in this room."

But you're describing the room, not the komodo dragon that isn't there. How do you describe a "nothing"?

Why not? Surely this is not the way you think in general when you come upon contingent realities.

Well, I don't generally think of "contingent realities" at all, honestly, because I don't believe in anything to contrast against them. But there is no reason that I can think of that you couldn't have contingent things interacting with each other indefinitely.

 

[zippy2006]

Because you are describing "nothing" in positive terms. Hypostatization.

No, it's just a way of speaking. In particular, it is a way of speaking about a privation or lack. It is common to use positive terms to describe a lack, e.g. blindness, nothing, absence, emptiness, etc.

But "He" and "She" are real things that you can describe.

That doesn't account for the fact that we say blindness exists.

"There does not exist a komodo dragon in this room."

But you're describing the room, not the komodo dragon that isn't there.

No, I am not just describing the room. I am describing something that does not exist in the room. I am describing a lack. I am describing a possibility that did not obtain.

How do you describe a "nothing"?

A "nothing" is not an object, it is a lack of an object. I could as easily say, "There does not exist a komodo dragon." The statement would be false and intelligible.

It seems to me that "Nothing exists" is a kind of counterfactual statement. I can look at the chair in my room and form the (intelligible) proposition, "The chair does not exist." I can also form the proposition, "Chairs do not exist." I can go on with, "Things do not exist," and "Realities do not exist." There is simply nothing incoherent about this. I just don't understand the force of your disagreement. I pray you're not just being difficult? Is it a conflation of imagination with conceptualization?

Well, I don't generally think of "contingent realities" at all, honestly, because I don't believe in anything to contrast against them.

You don't have a concept of the transience of things? You don't understand that certain things may or may not have existed, and will not going on existing forever?

But there is no reason that I can think of that you couldn't have contingent things interacting with each other indefinitely.

Like Monkeys in a Barrel that are just hanging on other monkeys, hanging on other monkeys, with nothing other than monkeys supporting them? :think:

 

[Damian]

A being that bears the reason for its being in itself.

This is not saying that God is creating himself. It's saying that God is a necessary being. That is, God's nonexistence is impossible. To a believer, it is impossible that God cannot exist. So, why is there something rather than nothing.? There is something rather than nothing because it is impossible for there to be nothing. God exists necessarily.

 

[zippy2006]

For instance, if we take it absolutely, the sentence "nothing exists" becomes potentially incoherent.

I think one of the easier ways to think about it is as follows:

The contradictory proposition is, "Something exists." I take it that this is intelligible? Your computer exists; your computer is something; therefore something exists. From this argument we can easily see that it is false that "Nothing exists," since the two are contradictory propositions. Furthermore, the truth of "Nothing exists" is equivalent to the falsity of "Something exists," and I think the falsity of that proposition is also quite intelligible and coherent.

 

[rexlunae]

No, it's just a way of speaking. In particular, it is a way of speaking about a privation or lack. It is common to use positive terms to describe a lack, e.g. blindness, nothing, absence, emptiness, etc.

But when you use blindness, or emptiness, and even "nothing", most of the time, you are describing something.

That doesn't account for the fact that we say blindness exists.

But blindness is a property of a thing (or a person) that exists. What is the thing that you are describing in the sentence "nothing exists"?

No, I am not just describing the room. I am describing something that does not exist in the room.

You're describing something that doesn't exist? What color is the komodo dragon that doesn't exist?

I am describing a lack. I am describing a possibility that did not obtain.

I think that's the problem.

A "nothing" is not an object, it is a lack of an object.

That's what I'm saying.

I could as easily say, "There does not exist a komodo dragon." The statement would be false and intelligible.

And ambiguous.

It seems to me that "Nothing exists" is a kind of counterfactual statement.

Where, in that posit, is this nothing?

I can look at the chair in my room and form the (intelligible) proposition, "The chair does not exist."

A cringeworthy assertion, if ever I heard one. And even so, you're describing the chairlessness of your room.

I can also form the proposition, "Chairs do not exist."

Presumably, the context here is "in reality" or something similar.

I can go on with, "Things do not exist," and "Realities do not exist." There is simply nothing incoherent about this.

I think we have more than enough examples.

I just don't understand the force of your disagreement. I pray you're not just being difficult?

Well, I'm being sincere, and not intentionally difficult.

Is it a conflation of imagination with conceptualization?

Nope.

You don't have a concept of the transience of things?

Sure I do. I call it "transience".

You don't understand that certain things may or may not have existed, and will not going on existing forever?

Everything is transient. I don't make a habit of using words to distinguish everything from nothing beside the obvious.

Like Monkeys in a Barrel that are just hanging on other monkeys, hanging on other monkeys, with nothing other than monkeys supporting them? :think:

Sure.

 

[Damian]

In my opinion there is nothing as essential or fundamental to existence than knowing God.

Your response to the question I posed in the OP would suggest that you believe it is possible for nothing to exist.

 

[rexlunae]

The contradictory proposition is, "Something exists."

The contrary proposition to "something exists" would be "something does not exist".

Furthermore, "something" is a thing, even if not a very specific thing, that can reasonably have properties applied to it.

I take it that this is intelligible? Your computer exists; your computer is something; therefore something exists.

Sure, as far as it goes.

From this argument we can easily see that it is false that "Nothing exists," since the two are contradictory propositions.

In order for it to be false, it would have to mean something.

Furthermore, the truth of "Nothing exists" is equivalent to the falsity of "Something exists," and I think the falsity of that proposition is also quite intelligible and coherent.

"∃(Nothing)" and "∃(something)" are not contrary hypotheses.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll come back to your previous response in time:

The contradictory proposition is, "Something exists."

The contrary proposition to "something exists" would be "something does not exist".

That's true, and the contradictory proposition to "something exists" would be "nothing exists." A contrary is different from a contradiction, and the negation of something does not entail its contrary.

Furthermore, "something" is a thing, even if not a very specific thing, that can reasonably have properties applied to it.

That's true, and the non-existence of such a thing is a perfectly coherent proposition. You're trying to apply some ready-made language philosophy instead of understanding language as it is used. It is just not incoherent to talk about the non-existence of something. For example, you will do this when your friend dies.

Sure, as far as it goes.

:up:

From this argument we can easily see that it is false that "Nothing exists," since the two are contradictory propositions.

In order for it to be false, it would have to mean something.

That's my point. It obviously is false. You can't logically say that something exists without denying that nothing exists.

"∃(Nothing)" and "∃(something)" are not contrary hypotheses.

Again, that's true, and you are failing to understand distinctions between contraries and contradictories. Furthermore, you are failing to understand what is meant by "nothing" when you construct the formula implying that nothing is a positive entity. The correct formulation would be the logically equivalent, "There is not any entity such that it exists; there are no entities with existence; no-thing exists; it is false that something exists."

 

[George Affleck]

Your response to the question I posed in the OP would suggest that you believe it is possible for nothing to exist.

You came to the conclusion that what I was saying was stupid. You have the right to that opinion.

You previously argued that "everything is presuppositional." "Everything" is definitely "something." (I don't want to hear any more stupidity from you.)

Are you now wanting to pursue what you have already labelled "stupid" or should we call it a day?

God exists infinitely. (A better way to say it is 'God is'. Existence sometimes implies physicality.) All things flow from Him perfectly at His command. Perfection is damaged by sin (disobedience - misuse of free will). Subsequently God deliberately withdraws a portion of His superintending power causing partial chaos.

The unregenerate notice this chaos and improperly assign it to a non-loving God, giving them what they think is excuse for further disobedience. God blocks the way back to fellowship with Him by providing reconciliation in a way that He has designed to be foolishness to those who love disobedience. But to us it is the power God.

It is impossible, given our life experiences, acquired presuppositions, and disobedience baggage, to imagine how we would react in a situation of coming into being and experiencing consciousness for the first time.

My point is that awareness is a false starting point. It assumes that God is not the starting point which, at the outset, is presupposition.

 

[Damian]

God exists infinitely. (A better way to say it is 'God is'. Existence sometimes implies physicality.)

You're just playing a semantical game in order to divert attention away from the fact that your argument has been refuted. "Consicousness is." "Awareness is." So, there is defintely something, even if that something is not physical.

My point is that awareness is a false starting point. It assumes that God is not the starting point which, at the outset, is presupposition.

As you have learned, consciousness is. Awareness is. So, there is definitely something rather than nothing. Also, "belief in God" is itself a presupposition. (It is not axiomatic. It is not self-evident.) But more to the point, the OP actually does presuppose God. It presupposes that God is a necessary being whose nonexistence is impossible. That's why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[PureX]

I really admire your honesty you have with yourself, it's a breath of fresh air

Thanks! I appreciate the compliment. I do believe that for we humans, it's far more important to pursue love, forgiveness, and honesty than it is to pursue "the Truth". Because we can achieve love, and forgiveness, and honesty, while we will never be able to know the whole truth.

 

[CherubRam]

"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

Zero is a value, and all that is before the value of 1. Or in other words; nothing is something.