Why is there something rather than nothing?

[ChristineM]

Once the "reason" of why there is something rather than nothing is obtained, this will only raise the question of the origin of whatever that reason or cause is, and thus the question will remain unanswered.

Not necessarily. But if it does then that answer will be sought.

 

[Glaurung]

Would you still call it "God" if it didn't align with the god of your religion?

I am not making an argument for the veracity of any particular religious tradition. I'm arguing for a particular concept of God.

No, I think "cosmic superman" is a perfectly valid description of what the typical person in the pews of a typical church believes in. If anything, it's the theologians asserting that their religion's god is an "all-pervading reality" or other nebulous nonsense who are misrepresenting things.

To borrow a phrase often repeated by atheists. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And while it is well within your prerogative to ignore it, the Christian tradition (especially in its Catholic and Orthodox forms) is far deeper and far more rich than you give it credit for.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? .. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

Nice if you are satisfied with this view. But science has not been (satisfied). Therefore, we ended up with Quantum Mechanics which shortens the distance between existence and non-existence. Perhaps the two are related as mentioned in a RigVeda verse:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[james blunt]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

God always existed and always will exist , your soul is surrounded by darkness , don't believe me ? Close your eyes and look within .
To see the light you have to keep them closed , you see the same picture that looks dark . However , to see God , you have to see that it is not light or dark you are seeing , you are seeing God and God is very clear .

This is what God looks like ...

Understand , it is not dark or light in the picture and the picture is also 3d .

 

[stvdv]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

Hence the Saints advise "Truth can be found in Silence"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not making an argument for the veracity of any particular religious tradition. I'm arguing for a particular concept of God.

Yes: you're arguing for your concept of God, and I would bet good money that there's more to your concept of God than just "uncaused cause."

To borrow a phrase often repeated by atheists. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And while it is well within your prerogative to ignore it, the Christian tradition (especially in its Catholic and Orthodox forms) is far deeper and far more rich than you give it credit for.

"Without evidence?" I assumed that you would be familiar with the Nicene Creed. If you aren't, maybe you should check it out.

It describes how God the Son is a literal man with powers beyond that of a normal man, who now lives in Heaven. I think "cosmic superman" is a fair summary of this idea.

I think "cosmic superman" also works for God the Father, a being who the Creed tells us begot (not made, begot - the Creed is emphatic about this) a son and has a form that's physical enough to have a "right hand" and to reside in a specific place.

OTOH, your god that's "timeless, transcendent and completely devoid of all parts and material components" doesn't fit anything described in the Creed, which says that even the Holy Spirit talks to people occasionally.

 

[Windwalker]

You talked of a mystery, that is something we don't know the answer to, i.e. we are ignorant of the answer, then calling it god and then you talked about worshipping. I don't see how that isn't worshipping ignorance.

In the context of this thread, I have no idea why there is something rather than nothing and I don't understand why I would want to call that ignorance god, let alone worship it. Makes no sense to me.

Mystery does not mean ignorance in this context. One can be fully aware of the Mystery, yet consider it beyond comprehension.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
​

Now that is what is meant by the mystery. It's not ignorance. As Einstein said, "To know what is impenetrable to us really exists". "This knowledge", is not ignorance. It's knowledge. It's awareness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

I don't believe it does:

1) God answers the question, "Where does God come from?" in the scriptures, and I appreciate that fact.

2) Are you able to conceive how time perception changes without timelight, pre-universe?

3) 100 times daily on this forum, a skeptic says, "Must be a natural, not supernatural explanation, for X process observed in nature." Why is this disallowed for the creation of the universe? Goddidit.

 

[We Never Know]

Can you provide an example of nothing? Do we have reason to believe that it's even possible for nothing to exist? Maybe there is something because it's not possible for there to be nothing.

Some hypotheses have the universe or universe's always existing. Repeatedly expanding and collasping.

 

[Thief]

So, why is there something rather than nothing?

kinda hard to say......I AM!

without something....to show for it

 

[ratiocinator]

Now that is what is meant by the mystery. It's not ignorance. As Einstein said, "To know what is impenetrable to us really exists". "This knowledge", is not ignorance. It's knowledge. It's awareness.

Knowing "what is impenetrable to us" is just knowing of your own ignorance. It's good to know the limits of one's knowledge and can be inspiring and exiting.

"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong."

-- Richard Feynman​

It's still ignorance though, and I can still see no possible reason to worship it...

 

[ratiocinator]

1) God answers the question, "Where does God come from?" in the scriptures, and I appreciate that fact.

Is this serious? If so, what's the answer?

It's really not a question of "where" god comes from anyway (whatever that means). With a god, we have exactly the same question: why does this god exist and not nothing (or a different god)?

 

[Curious George]

Some hypotheses have the universe or universe's always existing. Repeatedly expanding and collasping.

That is different though, is it not. The thrust of the previous, quoted question still goes unanswered.

Regardless of whether theories that hypothesize something always existing, is there any reason to believe that an unequivocated nothing, relative to the OPs use, can exist?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

I tend to think our reality is information of the pre-existing kind, like natural math functions. Singularities in space, the amazing existence of energy and of us and the orderliness of the universe suggests this to me. In that case our lifetimes are neither coming into existence nor disappearing but are possibilities in information space. Because of this one idea I like is informational structural realism.

God is beyond our own universe, not part of our math function here. God exists on the moral plane. We exist on a physical plane. We interact with God through our minds.

edit: our minds and our actions. We can do something other animals can't: imagine other universes, other planes and be affected by them. It is a conceptual connection that goes beyond this physical realm to touch that which is unseen.

 

[Windwalker]

Knowing "what is impenetrable to us" is just knowing of your own ignorance.

Not in the context in which Einstein was speaking. "The insight into the mystery of life". How do you have insight and ignorance at the same time? He isn't saying insight into our ignorance. He is speaking of the mystery of life. Our ignorance is no mystery at all.

It's good to know the limits of one's knowledge and can be inspiring and exiting.

But that is not what he was referring to. Since when do you, "pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe" at our own ignorance? Ignorance is not, "The most beautiful thing we can experience". Ignorance is most certainly not, "The source of all true art and science".

I'm not sure what you are imagining here, but it certainly is not what Einstein meant by "mystery". It does not match anything he says, which I just demonstrated. Art is not an expression of ignorance. It is an expression of inexpressible Mystery, however.

 

[ratiocinator]

How do you have insight and ignorance at the same time?

It's not difficult - it's just knowing the limits of your knowledge and recognising how much you don't know.

Since when do you, "pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe" at our own ignorance?

At the idea that there is so much more than we fully understand, why not?

What Einstein meant is irrelevant anyway. I'm still not seeing anything but ignorance (often inspiring and interesting, but ignorance nevertheless) and no reason to worship anything.

 

[viole]

It's not less valid. You are entitled to your belief. I am simply pointing out that positing a "God" to solve the problem of why there is something rather than nothing does not actually solve the problem. It simply raises the same question. More questions in fact, since a cosmic superman would presumably be more complicated and thus more deserving of an explanation than the universe it created.

Flawless logic. Actually, it is so obvious that it is mind biggling that some theists still use this argument.

Unless thay assume that God is nothing, which would contradict the premise of them being theists.

No matter what, the argument is logically untenable in this simple form.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't believe it does:

1) God answers the question, "Where does God come from?" in the scriptures, and I appreciate that fact.

2) Are you able to conceive how time perception changes without timelight, pre-universe?

3) 100 times daily on this forum, a skeptic says, "Must be a natural, not supernatural explanation, for X process observed in nature." Why is this disallowed for the creation of the universe? Goddidit.

Your statement that "God" comes from the "Scriptures" makes no sense. The "scriptures" are only a few thousand years old at most, while "God" is alleged to have always existed. So how can the "scriptures" create something older than themselves? And further, if the "scriptures" made God, then who made the "scriptures?"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Unless thay assume that God is nothing, which would contradict the premise of them being theists. No matter what, the argument is logically untenable in this simple form.

The whole problem arises because of belief in an eternal God. For me, Hindu 'Brahman' is not a God (though there are many who believe like that). For me 'Brahman' is the entity which constitutes all things in the universe. In the fashion of Quantum Mechanics, this entity/energy/substrate could go back to its nothingness state as also arise out of 'absolute void'. We have made this distinction of existence and non-existence, material and non-material. Probably it is not tenable for that entity/energy/substrate.

 

[Willamena]

What if that something called life doesnt ever turn into nothing? That's one long ride through the universe.

Every something "turns into" something that it already was: a flower is the seed, the bud, the blossom, the photosynthesized sunlight, and the soil. It's "turning" is a dogma of common speech, just as the "setting" of the sun is. Just as the "death" of personhood is.