The Most Basic Question...

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe existence does not exist.

Then again, sometimes the most obvious answer is the right answer. Do you feel like you don't exist? No? Then you probably do.

 

[ChristineM]

From the link: So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.

I think that means that in these theories "nothing" is not really "nothing".

A vacuum bubble can form spontaneously from nothing. It does not matter what is outside the bubble but the nothing inside the bubble. I think this point is well explained

 

[Brian2]

That seems weird because then in a finite amount of time in the past there was something that existed without a cause. If that thing was infinite then you have the same infinity problem.
If that thing was a being then that really stretches the probability, why would a being or God just exist in complete nothingness and consciousness is complex. A first cause should be something simple like pure potentiality (which in a way is what particles are made of).

If time came into existence then this first cause would have caused time.
I don't know what pure potentiality is, or if it is simple or not.
I don't know if consciousness is any more or less complex than pure potentiality.
I don't know if a first cause needs to be simple.

You are also assuming causality, the big bang created spacetime which has a direction of time, that doesn't exist everywhere.
You don't need to go back ad infinitum if time does not exist outside our universe. But there are infinities in numbers and larger infinities between each number, we can still get past them. There isn't one universal time, relativity demonstrated this, so that isn't a problem.

I did not use time in my answer, I used a number of causes and said that we could not be at the infiniteth one yet.
But yes I do use reality (causality) and don't go into the B theory of time where it is theorised, speculated, that time and causality are not real as we know them. But the whole thing seems to be just a way to escape into a fantasy world where nothing is real, strawberry fields forever, in an attempts to go forward (backward) and make other speculations in a world where some obvious brick walls are not there any more.
But yes time it seems does go faster or slower in different places and that does not mean anything concerning time going into the past imo.

But the question is why is there something and not nothing, not the Kalam cosmological argument? If the Kalam doesn't support Zeus or Inana than it doesn't support Yahweh either. The question is why does anything exist?

No we aren't talking specifics, we are just talking a first cause as a reason everything else exists.
Why the first cause exists is another question and actually turns the first cause into not the first cause, if you want a cause for the first cause.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The simple explanation is ...

Seven rambling and senseless paragraphs?

 

[Brian2]

A vacuum bubble can form spontaneously from nothing. It does not matter what is outside the bubble but the nothing inside the bubble. I think this point is well explained

The bubble needs something outside for it to form and to form in.
How does a universe just come into existence from absolutely nothing inside a true vacuum bubble when the bubble is big enough?
I tend to see some things as fantasies in mathematics. The fantasy side of it can be seen when we stand back and look at the big picture of what is being said instead of just the mathematical symbols on paper.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

The "most basic question" is a bad question. It's akin to asking, "What causes cause?

Does the canvas cause the painting on which it appears?

Existence simply is...without cause...and it's time, space, and causation that bring forth the appearance of form (things). Since existence is the substrate on which "cause" appears, it stands to reason that existence has no cause.

 

[syo]

"why is there something rather than nothing?"

Don't bash at nothing.

 

[PureX]

A vacuum bubble can form spontaneously from nothing. It does not matter what is outside the bubble but the nothing inside the bubble. I think this point is well explained

It can't exist in nothing. That would be a bubble of nothing occurring in nothing. That's logically incoherent. The same logical incoherency as supra-existence. Just dressed up as science. And in any case, it doesn't respond to the origin of the forces that would enable it to happen.

Theories abound. Still no answers, though.

 

[PureX]

The "most basic question" is a bad question. It's akin to asking, "What causes cause?

Does the canvas cause the painting on which it appears?

Existence simply is...without cause...and it's time, space, and causation that bring forth the appearance of form (things). Since existence is the substrate on which "cause" appears, it stands to reason that existence has no cause.

Rejecting the question is not an answer. We would need to negate the question. And that we cannot do.

 

[ChristineM]

The bubble needs something outside for it to form and to form in.
How does a universe just come into existence from absolutely nothing inside a true vacuum bubble when the bubble is big enough?
I tend to see some things as fantasies in mathematics. The fantasy side of it can be seen when we stand back and look at the big picture of what is being said instead of just the mathematical symbols on paper.

Nothing in the bubble which is where it is suggested the universe spontaneity formed.

 

[PureX]

The bubble needs something outside for it to form and to form in.
How does a universe just come into existence from absolutely nothing inside a true vacuum bubble when the bubble is big enough?
I tend to see some things as fantasies in mathematics. The fantasy side of it can be seen when we stand back and look at the big picture of what is being said instead of just the mathematical symbols on paper.

It's semantic slight of hand. A vacuum in a vacuum is nothing pretending to be something.

 

[ChristineM]

It can't exist in nothing. That would be a bubble of nothing occurring in nothing. That's logically incoherent. The same logical incoherency as supra-existence. Just dressed up as science. And in any case, it doesn't respond to the origin of the forces that would enable it to happen.

Theories abound. Still no answers, though.

since when you qualify in quanum vacuum bubbles?

Yes quantum can be incoherent at times, none the less, it is how it is

 

[SalixIncendium]

Rejecting the question is not an answer. We would need to negate the question. And that we cannot do.

I think you meant "I," unless you're speaking for that mouse in your pocket.

 

[taykair]

It's interesting to me that this is often considered one of those basic questions. I never ask it. I don't see the point in asking it. Lots of stuff is here, and I experience lots of stuff. To me, the natural and basic question to ask is "what is my relationship to all this stuff?" not "why is it here?" Who cares why it is here? It's here. I have a relationship with everything around me. What does that mean, and how do I navigate the reality of which I am a part?

Could it be that perhaps some do not ask the question out of a fear that the pursuit of its answer may indeed change how they view these relationships? I'm not saying that this is true in your case, but I can see how someone's relationship to reality may be changed through the discovery of something previously unknown --

-- at least on an emotional level. If, say, someone would somehow discover that he was actually a disembodied brain (you know, the old brain-in-a-vat / Matrix kind of jazz) and that his previous "reality" was simply a very vivid and complex creation of his own mind, then I am pretty sure there would be some problems for that guy if he returned to that "reality". He might perceive things in exactly the same way as he did before his discovery, but he himself would be changed --

-- for better or worse, I don't know.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How do you approach this?

Short answer: Because nothing is nothing.

 

[Ostronomos]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).

Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but

Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.

How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.

But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.

Among the axioms of reality are:

1.] Nothing exists because it is a state.

2.] Existent and non-existent are one.

3.] Reality is reduced to axioms.

4.] Reality is dictated by logic.

5.] Reality is the set of all things that exist.

Just based on these points we see that reality exists and must therefore negate that which does not exist.

This is a realm of unbound potential. An eternal and infinite non-conceptual void that must by necessity be negated in order for reality to exist. Opposites permeate our very nature and beyond.

 

[PureX]

I think you meant "I," unless you're speaking for that mouse in your pocket.

"We" as in you, me, and anyone else that feels obliged to heed the dictates of logic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

Aren't you asking two questions?

[1] Why is there something rather than nothing?
[2] Given that there is something, does it need a cause?

Neither question is answerable, but aren't they different questions?

It's interesting to me that this is often considered one of those basic questions. I never ask it. I don't see the point in asking it.

I do. It's interesting to contemplate even if there is no answer. It helps delineate the perimeters of knowledge to be aware of what you don't know. And it's had practical value when dealing with special pleading fallacies from Abrahamic creationists, who posit a deity to explain the existence of everything else including consciousness. Ask them why such a deity should exist rather than not.

It's analogous to asking what the nature of the reality behind experience is, as with questions involving brains in a vat and last Thursdayism. What would we experience if we could get out of our bubble of experience (the theater of consciousness)? We can't answer those questions, either, but there has been benefit in understanding that. Free will questions evaporate away once one understands that that question is also unanswerable. One benefits by thinking about a thing long enough to realize that additional thinking about it cannot yield anything more, which may be where you started judging by your comment.

Who cares why it is here? It's here. I have a relationship with everything around me. What does that mean, and how do I navigate the reality of which I am a part?

That's our main problem in the game of life - maximizing conscious experience. Part of my solution has been to discover interesting things to think about, which is why I am here on RF, and why I navigate its threads, which are a part of reality, too.

A problem with that would be that there could not be an infinite number of causes or we would not be at this particular cause yet. That tells us that there had to have been a first cause, something that existed without a cause.

We don't know that there was a first cause. It seems that either something always existed (had no first instant and has already existed an infinite amount of time to reach this moment), or else something came into existence from nothing uncaused. They are both highly counterintuitive ideas. Either one, when considered alone, seems impossible, yet is seems that one or the other must be the case. And we can go no further without committing logical fallacy, such as just guessing and picking one (leap of faith fallacy), or saying that since one possibility seems impossible after considering it in isolation from the other, it must be the other (both an incredulity and an ad ignorantiam fallacy).

The simple explanation is connected to humans having two centers of consciousness; the inner self and the ego.

That's not an answer to why there is something rather than nothing, nor to, "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

 

[SalixIncendium]

"We" as in you, me, and anyone else that feels obliged to heed the dictates of logic.

I don’t presume to speak for you. I would appreciate if you would extend me that same courtesy. Thank you.

 

[Colt]

I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)

It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).

Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but

Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.

How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.

But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?

The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"

This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.

* The universe was not inevitable.

* Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects.

* Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged.

"The mechanistic philosopher professes to reject the idea of a universal and sovereign will, the very sovereign will whose activity in the elaboration of universe laws he so deeply reverences. What unintended homage the mechanist pays the law-Creator when he conceives such laws to be self-acting and self-explanatory"! UB 1955