Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Stuu]

I've only defined "universe" like that. You could also name that the cosmos or whatever.

All the compositions of the universe is obviously contingent in nature. Why not the universe?

Putting aside the problem of matter/energy/space-time for a minute, what exactly do you mean by contingent?

Stuart

 

[Repentance]

Putting aside the problem of matter/energy/space-time for a minute, what exactly do you mean by contingent?

Stuart

If something is contingent then the explanation for its existence lies externally to it. It has an external cause. It could fail to exist.

 

[Stuu]

If something is contingent then the explanation for its existence lies externally to it. It has an external cause. It could fail to exist.

I see. Explain to me how cause works in a condition of time not existing.

Stuart

 

[Damian]

How do you know it is something?

Because I am experiencing something.

 

[bybee]

I disagree with all of that.

Stuart

There is a "Stuart" I'm addressing him/it. Therefore something exists.

 

[Damian]

I think that's actually an incoherent question.

I don't. But if you do not understand the question, then perhaps you should find another thread to occupy your time.

 

[Stuu]

There is a "Stuart" I'm addressing him/it. Therefore something exists.

I don't think that is actually relevant to that particular argument, is it?

We are borrowed gravitational energy. That means we may exist without being considered 'something', in an accounting sense at least.

Stuart

 

[bybee]

I don't think that is actually relevant to the argument, is it?

Stuart

Welllllll, we are talking about existence and non-existence are we not?

 

[Damian]

Genesis 1:1

I'm asking a philosophical question and I expect a philosophical response. Why don't you actually attempt to think for your self rather than simply citing biblical verses.

 

[Damian]

so the real question
is
what are we doing here?l

If you don't like the question I posed in the OP, then I suggest you start your own thread.

 

[Repentance]

I see. Explain to me how cause works in a condition of time not existing.

Stuart

If you believe that that the universe necessarily exists as a result of its own nature somehow and that time has no beginning, then you should not have realise that this notion is quite illogical. Time should have a beginning and I think you agree.

So what caused time to begin? And why couldn't it have began sooner? You should realise that the second question is illogical. Without time there can be no concepts of "sooner" or "later". So what CAUSED the beginning? Without time there can be NO causal effects

BUT enter God a timeless space less being!

 

[Stuu]

Welllllll, we are talking about existence and non-existence are we not?

That's not the title of the thread.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

If you believe that that the universe necessarily exists as a result of its own nature somehow and that time has no beginning, then you should not have realise that this notion is quite illogical. Time should have a beginning and I think you agree.

So what caused time to begin? And why couldn't it have began sooner? You should realise that the second question is illogical. Without time there can be no concepts of "sooner" or "later". So what CAUSED the beginning? Without time there can be NO causal effects

BUT enter God a timeless space less being!

I think there is little question that there was a beginning to time. And there is your problem. In your 'logical' view, cause-and-effect is temporal: causes come before effects. But with the beginning of the universe, the very first thing we see is an effect, not a cause. There is no such thing as "before the beginning of the universe".

So already you can forget human logic if you are trying to explain the existence of the universe. Who says the universe has to conform to logic? We already know it doesn't because of the freaky effects we observe at the quantum level.

Stuart

 

[Damian]

Just try to answer the following questions and explain to me how is that proof of their reality?

I asked the question and I furnished you with a rational reply. Your only counterargument is to deny the legitimacy of the question. If that is your tack, then you are simply conceding the point by default.

 

[Damian]

The total energy of the universe is zero.

So neither you nor Liebniz have really established that there is 'something'.

I don't have time for your stupidity.

 

[Stuu]

I don't have time for your stupidity.

I acknowledge your rejection of philosophy.

Stuart

 

[Damian]

Why indeed. Obviously you have seen The Creator and know Him. You need to recognize that He has sent His Son to give you eternal life. Once you do that the rest is simple.

Don't try to hijack this thread by engaging in your inane proselytizing .

 

[Damian]

Well... if there were nothing you wouldn't exist to pose the question....And I would not exist to posit a response....

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't address the question.

 

[Damian]

The modal cosmological argument (contingency version) proves God using a similar concept. The universe either has to be contingent (caused by an external cause) or necessary existing as a result of its own nature. The universe has to have an explanation for its existence. Atheists have to show how and why it is impossible for the universe not to have existed. Good luck.

I'm surprised. You're actually making a rational argument.

 

[Repentance]

I think there is little question that there was a beginning to time. And there is your problem. In your 'logical' view, cause-and-effect is temporal: causes come before effects. But with the beginning of the universe, the very first thing we see is an effect, not a cause.

So already you can forget human logic if you are trying to explain the existence of the universe. Who says the universe has to conform to logic? We know it doesn't because of the freaky effects we observe at the quantum level.

Stuart

Lmao! So you think there needn't be a logical explanation for the existence of the universe? This is quite astonishing. What is science for? Why are scientists sweating over it? We see an effect and we have the audacity to attribute no cause to it just because time does seem to began just then and cause and effect are temporal. Why not think of an abstract cause - something that is timeless and spaceless. Why not try the God hypothesis (the god of the deists). It needn't be up to a point of certainty. A Mind (which exists as a necessity of its own nature) being the cause of it is more probable than no cause at all! That's enough a good argument for God's existence.

The "freaky effects we observe at a quantum level" or more specifically the nondeterministic model of reality at the quantum level we are forced to consider does not provide any explanation for the beginning of the universe. It debunks determinism and upholds the concept of freewill in a way but "before" the beginning we should have had a philosophical nothingness and this leads to NO "freaky effects at all". No way could matter,space and time originate from a philosophical nothingness.