Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 10:56:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The question bothers me because it expresses an incomplete thought. There can be no answer for the questioner has not forwarded a cogent question.

And your answer is absolutely unfounded. I wish life worked that way, where we could just declare things necessary and move on. But we must deconstruct and dissect our reasoning down to its axiomatic armature. What axiom of logic makes something necessary? And before you even answer that, let's make sure we have a working conception of what we mean by "something" and "nothing". Nothing truly is inconceivable. If you imagine a black space. Isn't that something? It's a black space! Essentially, if you can name it, it's something. Wouldn't nothing then be the only something? This is the problem with such ridiculous questions.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 10:57:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is it necessary?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:03:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 10:56:37 AM, 000ike wrote:
The question bothers me because it expresses an incomplete thought. There can be no answer for the questioner has not forwarded a cogent question.

And your answer is absolutely unfounded.

Well, it is either my answer, or "something" is contingent, that would mean it came from nothing. Do you think that is a better answer?

I wish life worked that way, where we could just declare things necessary and move on.

We can. It is either an infinite regress, something came from nothing, or something is necessary. The latter seems the most reasonable to me.

But we must deconstruct and dissect our reasoning down to its axiomatic armature. What axiom of logic makes something necessary? And before you even answer that, let's make sure we have a working conception of what we mean by "something" and "nothing". Nothing truly is inconceivable. If you imagine a black space. Isn't that something? It's a black space! Essentially, if you can name it, it's something. Wouldn't nothing then be the only something? This is the problem with such ridiculous questions.

I don't quite follow...lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:06:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 10:57:57 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Why is it necessary?

Well, either "something" is necessary or contingent. If it is contingent, then it would have to have came from nothing, because the set of "something" couldn't be contingent upon "something" because that would contradict the original assumption that we were talking about the set of "something".

Pretty basic reasoning as to how we can answer this easy question...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:15:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:03:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 10:56:37 AM, 000ike wrote:
The question bothers me because it expresses an incomplete thought. There can be no answer for the questioner has not forwarded a cogent question.

And your answer is absolutely unfounded.

Well, it is either my answer, or "something" is contingent, that would mean it came from nothing. Do you think that is a better answer?

I wish life worked that way, where we could just declare things necessary and move on.

We can. It is either an infinite regress, something came from nothing, or something is necessary. The latter seems the most reasonable to me.

Doesn't "something" being necessary also entail an infinite regress?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:16:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

I should also note that the adverb "why" is inappropriate in the question because it requires a teleological answer, or the presumption that a reason exists. If the universe always existed, then clearly there can't be a cause for the concept of existence. If not, then your question can only by answered through scientific study, not deductive logic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:17:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:06:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 10:57:57 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Why is it necessary?

Well, either "something" is necessary or contingent. If it is contingent, then it would have to have came from nothing, because the set of "something" couldn't be contingent upon "something" because that would contradict the original assumption that we were talking about the set of "something".

Pretty basic reasoning as to how we can answer this easy question...

It doesn't explain why it is necessary, just that if it wasn't it would have to come from nothing.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:17:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

You don't believe in the absence of something?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:20:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:17:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

You don't believe in the absence of something?

I think he's indicating he doesn't believe "total absence" is a thing which ever existed.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:21:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:20:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:17:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

You don't believe in the absence of something?

I think he's indicating he doesn't believe "total absence" is a thing which ever existed.

Or could ever exist.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:22:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:15:57 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:03:51 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 10:56:37 AM, 000ike wrote:
The question bothers me because it expresses an incomplete thought. There can be no answer for the questioner has not forwarded a cogent question.

And your answer is absolutely unfounded.

Well, it is either my answer, or "something" is contingent, that would mean it came from nothing. Do you think that is a better answer?

I wish life worked that way, where we could just declare things necessary and move on.

We can. It is either an infinite regress, something came from nothing, or something is necessary. The latter seems the most reasonable to me.

Doesn't "something" being necessary also entail an infinite regress?

No.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:23:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:21:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:20:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:17:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

You don't believe in the absence of something?

I think he's indicating he doesn't believe "total absence" is a thing which ever existed.

Or could ever exist.

Well, I believe (and I hate speaking for others, but I can't say it's my position) he's indicating that, because we have something, therefore there could never have been a true "nothing".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:25:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:16:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

I should also note that the adverb "why" is inappropriate in the question because it requires a teleological answer, or the presumption that a reason exists.

Ok, we can either say that "something" is necessary. or that "something" is a brute fact. Either way works.

If the universe always existed, then clearly there can't be a cause for the concept of existence. If not, then your question can only by answered through scientific study, not deductive logic.

Why not?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:27:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:17:09 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:06:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 10:57:57 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Why is it necessary?

Well, either "something" is necessary or contingent. If it is contingent, then it would have to have came from nothing, because the set of "something" couldn't be contingent upon "something" because that would contradict the original assumption that we were talking about the set of "something".

Pretty basic reasoning as to how we can answer this easy question...

It doesn't explain why it is necessary, just that if it wasn't it would have to come from nothing.

Take your pick? Something is necessary/ a brute fact, something came from absolutely nothing, or an infinite regress?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:28:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:17:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

You don't believe in the absence of something?

I don't believe there was ever the absence of everything. That's what I mean by nothing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:29:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because there's nothing preventing it from existing. There is no reason why it can't just appear into existence even though that seems to violate....something - but there is nothing!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:30:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:23:26 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:21:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:20:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:17:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

You don't believe in the absence of something?

I think he's indicating he doesn't believe "total absence" is a thing which ever existed.

Or could ever exist.

Well, I believe (and I hate speaking for others, but I can't say it's my position) he's indicating that, because we have something, therefore there could never have been a true "nothing".

Bingo. The idea is of "nothing" is probably a concept we made up. I think the most reasonable answer is that some form of nothing is necessary in a sense that it had to be, or it couldn't have been another way. I'm not sure why this is being contested so much, as it should be the most obvious conclusion ha
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:31:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:23:26 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:21:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:20:55 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:17:45 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:08:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There always had to be "something". "Nothing" is just as concept we invented. That is why there is something rather than nothing. Case closed.

You don't believe in the absence of something?

I think he's indicating he doesn't believe "total absence" is a thing which ever existed.

Or could ever exist.

Well, I believe (and I hate speaking for others, but I can't say it's my position) he's indicating that, because we have something, therefore there could never have been a true "nothing".

(Correction)

*I think the most reasonable answer is that some form of something is necessary in a sense that it had to be
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But what form of something had to be, and why?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:44:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:41:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But what form of something had to be, and why?

The why is the ex nihilo argument...if nothing can come from nothing (i.e. something cannot come from nothing), then therefore because we have something, there can't have been total nothing.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:52:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:41:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But what form of something had to be?

That's a great question! The best answer we have is "we don't know". There are many hypotheses however.

why?

It makes the most sense. You can have an infinite regress of somethings following other somethings, something from nothing, or one something that had to be. One could make the argument than an actual infinity was possible, if so that would still mean something was necessary (the infinity). If you want to argue something coming from nothing, I see nothing impossible with it, however it seems irrational, bizarre, and an option that should be avoided if necessary.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:53:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:44:50 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:41:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But what form of something had to be, and why?

The why is the ex nihilo argument...if nothing can come from nothing (i.e. something cannot come from nothing), then therefore because we have something, there can't have been total nothing.

So what if nothing could generate something?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:55:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is something. But it could have been possible that absolute nothingness could have existed for eternity, with something never existing. Why is that not the case?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:56:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 11:53:04 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:44:50 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 11:41:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
But what form of something had to be, and why?

The why is the ex nihilo argument...if nothing can come from nothing (i.e. something cannot come from nothing), then therefore because we have something, there can't have been total nothing.

So what if nothing could generate something?

There never could have been "nothing". "Nothing" is logically contradictory:

P1: If there is "nothing", there is no potential
P2: If there is no potential, then:

(i) there is no potential for a universe that spontaneously begins to exist
(ii) there is no potential for no universe that spontaneously begins to exist

P3: "Nothing" violates the Law of Non-Contradiction
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:15:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only problem with the above, is that if there was "nothing", that would include the laws of logic. Then you have to ask yourself, could there really have ever been nothing? That would mean the laws of logic are contingent upon nothingness. That seems strange indeed.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 12:15:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The only problem with the above, is that if there was "nothing", that would include the laws of logic. Then you have to ask yourself, could there really have ever been nothing? That would mean the laws of logic are contingent upon nothingness. That seems strange indeed.

That's part of why I think "true nothingness" is so far beyond our comprehension that we can't make statements about it, even something as "simple" as ex nihilo nihil fit. Similarly to how our laws of everything break down at the singularity, they break down at nothing.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 12:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/30/2013 12:17:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/30/2013 12:15:18 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The only problem with the above, is that if there was "nothing", that would include the laws of logic. Then you have to ask yourself, could there really have ever been nothing? That would mean the laws of logic are contingent upon nothingness. That seems strange indeed.

That's part of why I think "true nothingness" is so far beyond our comprehension that we can't make statements about it, even something as "simple" as ex nihilo nihil fit.

I agree. However, that is self-refuting, because you have to make a statement about it, to say that we can't make statements about it haha

Similarly to how our laws of everything break down at the singularity, they break down at nothing.

I would argue that the singularity is impossible, because it involves density, curvature, and temperature that is some number n over zero. Division by zero is mathematically impermissible.