Jump to content
Avant Labs
MattG187

why is there something insted of nothing

Recommended Posts

why is there something insted of nothing? i have been asked this question by many people and have tried to answer it to the best of my knowledge, which is limited. basically what are the best answers that have been put forth to answer this question. i have tried to answer it and will do so to start the topic but i would like for anyone to refine my answer or show me why it could or may be erroneous.

 

there exsists something rather then nothing for there exsists something whose essence is to exsist and cannot not exsist. its essence is it's very act of existing(im purposely not using the word him as to avoid religious ties).

 

i would also like to clarify another point, or would like help clarifying. there is something rather then nothing for nothing can never create something given eternity. therefore, nothing has never exsisted because something does exsist and the essence of that something is to exsist and it is eternal. it is and uncaused cause and is infinite. basically the two are mutually exclusive in which nothing could have never exsisted because something does exsist, thus something is eternal.

 

any comments or ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

I doubt its possible to pursue telelogical speculation about this observation any further. When one contemplates existence in constrast to nothingness (which is itself virtually impossible to conceive), it becomes evident that all that is, is infinite. If you try by proposing "what if there are other Gods or Universes or Realms of Existence 'totally apart' from ours," you are still left with the fact that such would still be part of One infiite whole, just bigger (to use an innaccurate term connotating spacial relation due to our or my linguistic constraints).

 

This is why those who say there is no God are essentially denying existence itself, which is impossible, as there IS something as evidenced by our self-aware phenomenological experience of qualia. Granted, this is due in great part to the fact that most of such people make the erroneous distinction between the Universe/Substance and God, when in fact, there is just One, the Infinite, which is what we are all part of and operating within ('the Mind of God'). What these metaphysical naturalists should say, in order to more accurately reflect their position, is that they deny the traditional Judeo-Christian theistic concept of a transcendent God existing apart from the Universe.

 

Of course, I may be so bold as to generalize and say that the majority of such people haven't really thought about any of this and simply adopt their "stance" in order to decrease any cognitive dissonance arising from a desire for hedonistic behavior and because atheism is somewhat of a bullshit socio-cultural meme, which attracts proponents much like the Democratic platform and the global warming/environmentalist alarmists. Further, since the adolescent and immediate post-adolescent environment (at least in America) seems to force the polarized false dilemma of "conservative evangelical young-earth creatonist Christians" or "progressive atheists" as the only worldview options, its easy to see how many are shuffled into the latter camp. With that said, I should note that there ARE of course metaphysical naturalists/atheists who are quite intelligent and aware of most of this. This group is simply wrong IMO, but is not as guilty of naivete to the same degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, since the adolescent and immediate post-adolescent environment (at least in America) seems to force the polarized false dilemma of "conservative evangelical young-earth creatonist Christians" or "progressive atheists" as the only worldview options, its easy to see how many are shuffled into the latter camp.

 

The other day I was talking to a childhood friend of mine who went to school to become a Lutheran priest. We were talking about the ways in which religious and metaphysical views are subtley impressed upon students, and she said, "I think every professor should have to state his worldview the very first class session, or even put it on the syllabus. I mean, there are only three [possible worldviews], after all, so it shouldn't be a problem."

 

I contemplated the irony of her remark while trying to pick my jaw up off of the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish others here with more philosophical/theological sophistication than myself would weigh in on these matters.

 

The question itself ('why is there something rather than nothing') is vulnerable to critique from a variety of perspectives, so much so that it's probably pointless to even try. Insensible propositions, e.g., that there could be nothing, simply don't admit progressive argument. IOW, the problem lies with the grammar of the question, not with answering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nightop, you sounds as if your concept of oneness is a argument for a type on monism wether spiritual or material. quantum physics also point to this oneness if im not mistaken in which we are all actually the same thing(quantum entanglement) and everything has "cause-effect" on everything else(quanta). i have had arguments with people who dont understand the word, nothing, in which the purport a vaccum(quantum fluctuations) explain the exsistence of everything. however, this question merely delays the inevitable in which we ask what created the vaccum etc. this seems to be the materialists, atheists, strongest argument i have seen but they mistake a type of something for nothing in which nothing is never and can never be a type of something.

 

section 8 i agree that the grammer of the situation gives rise to the confusion or argument in the answering of the question. however, some who have reached this conclusion have argued for monism which has many strong arguments against it. basically, it seems evident that a personal god, or entity, non-thing would have to had created this universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems like im making a quantum leap in logic to say there is a personal god, however, i have heard arguments which make it more probable then not that it is personal. that is, i can show why i think theism is correct, i just dont want to sidetrack this thread and keep it open to the main question and possible alternative answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

section 8 i agree that the grammer of the situation gives rise to the confusion or argument in the answering of the question. however, some who have reached this conclusion have argued for monism which has many strong arguments against it. basically, it seems evident that a personal god, or entity, non-thing would have to had created this universe.

 

I'm not really sure that I follow you. Are you saying that rejection of the question entails monism? Neither do I at all see it as "evident that a personal god, or entity, non-thing would have to had created this universe," the simplest objection being that already suggested by Nightop: the universe in and of itself can't have been created because the creative agency would then be part of the universe in virtue of what is meant by the word 'universe'. I'm firmly convinced that critique is the proper approach to this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no not at all, sorry for the confusion, im saying that to accept the question some people accept monism for the reasons you outlined. i dont accept monism but theism. i will elaborate but im in a rush and would rather form a convincing argument.

 

but yes the non-thing would have to be operating within the uni-verse. im was merely stating that theism has arguments against monism which refute it. the arguments come from madhvacharya and his critique of monism thus arguing for theism or a personal god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things exist, but they are characterized by their being and not-being. Nothing has inherent existence, permanence. Consider light; depending on the act of perception, it either acts as a particle or wave. Delayed quantum eraser experiments prove the act of observation of light can actually change its behavior backward through time. So is it a particle or wave? It is neither, merely potential realized into something by its relationship to its cause and observer. And it lacks inherent existence, as it doesn't arise by itself, but only due to causes, and when it hits an object and ceases to exist, this reflects its lack of inherent existence.

 

The laws of causality and physics in this reality apply this to all things, even at a greater macro scale. So, was there an original cause, beyond the universe? There would have to be. If there were not, then existence would happen without cause, and this would manifest continuously and randomly.

 

So, why is there something instead of nothing? Because there was a cause, a reason, following laws and manifesting more "something". The universe was not a cause unto itself, reincarnating itself eternally without an external cause, because models show there would be energy loss each time this happened.

 

The essence of things isn't existence. Inherent existence is delusion, because all has a cause, and is impermanent.

 

Nothing can never create something, no. Only something beyond the laws of causality of this universe would be able to be the initial cause.

 

The essence of things is not eternal. They are transitory; anything that is born, anything that changes, dies. Entropy consumes all. The essence of things is a state of triggered existence defined by its relation to other things, after which it returns to its state of non-existence. Thus it is a duality of existence and non-existence. Edit: to clarify, as one Buddhist monk said, "Being is the wave, not-being is the water."

 

Something is indeed eternal; the cause, the reason, for this universe. What that is, we have no way of proving; we can probe no more closely than a certain level. So it is a matter of faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is there something insted of nothing? i have been asked this question by many people and have tried to answer it to the best of my knowledge, which is limited. basically what are the best answers that have been put forth to answer this question. i have tried to answer it and will do so to start the topic but i would like for anyone to refine my answer or show me why it could or may be erroneous.

 

there exsists something rather then nothing for there exsists something whose essence is to exsist and cannot not exsist. its essence is it's very act of existing(im purposely not using the word him as to avoid religious ties).

 

i would also like to clarify another point, or would like help clarifying. there is something rather then nothing for nothing can never create something given eternity. therefore, nothing has never exsisted because something does exsist and the essence of that something is to exsist and it is eternal. it is and uncaused cause and is infinite. basically the two are mutually exclusive in which nothing could have never exsisted because something does exsist, thus something is eternal.

 

any comments or ideas?

 

Maybe this will answer your question...

 

In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself-- because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so , All That Is ... was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.

This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.

Now All That Is knew it was all there was-- but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of its self is that which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term "magnificent" is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not.

So.... The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so it could and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside Itself.

Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The "IS-Not IS" The Am-not Am

Still, the All of everything chose to know itself experientially.

This energy--this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy--chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.

It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.

And so all That Is divided itself --becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.

Thus, three elements suddenly existed: That which is here, That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there-but which must exist for here and there to exist.

It is the nothing which holds the everything, It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts.

I'llgo on further tomorrow...off to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To go even further with the above post...

Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate either, for it suggests that there is something God is not--namely, eveything that is not "nothing." But God is All Things--seen and unseen--so this description of God as the Great Unseen--no-Thing, or the space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as the all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All that is and All that is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.

Now in creating that which is "here" and that which is "there", God made possible for God to know Itself. In the moment ot this great explsion from within, God created relativity--the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail at another time.

From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything--a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what our scientists call The Big Bang theory.

As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there--and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable. Just as the parts of Itself which are seen began to define themselves, "relative" to each other, so, too, did the parts which are unseen.

God knew for love to exist--and to know itself as pure love--its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity-- the absolute opposite of love-- everything that love is not--what is now called fear. In a moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced.

It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which we humans refer to in our various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth.

Just as we have chosen to personify pure love as the character we call God, so have we chosen to personify abject fear as the character we call the Devil.

Some have established rather elaborate mythologies around this event, complete with scenarios of battles and wars, angelic solders and devilish warriors, the forces of good and evil, of light and dark.

This mythology has been mankind's attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but which the mind can barely conceive.

In rendering the universe a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists--both seen and unseen.

In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into infinite number of smaller units smaller than the whole. These units we call spirits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some of our religious mythologies it is stated that "God the Father" had many spirit children. This parallel to the human experiences of life multiplying itself seems to be the only way the masses could be made to hold in reality the idea of the appearance--the sudden existence--of countless spirits in the "Kingdom of Heaven"

In this instance, our mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality--for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Itself are, in a cosmic sense, Its offspring.

All That Is's divine purpose in dividing Itself was to create sufficient parts of Itself so that All That Is could know Itself experientially. There is only one way for the creator to know Itself experientially as the creator, and that is to create. And so God gave to each of the countless parts of Itself ( To all Its spirit children) the same power to create which God has as the whole.

This is what our religions mean when they say that we where created in the "image and likeness of God" This doesn't mean as some have suggested, that our physical bodies look alike( although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose.) It does mean that our essence is the same. We are composed of the same stuff. We ARE the "same stuff" With all the same properties and abilities--including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air. ie. As we think we create...ect

Any way I could go even further but I've tried to make my point... Thanks for listening to me drivel...LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I produced a thread on this.

 

Nothing becomes something, because if there was nothing, there is nothing to stop nothing becomming something.

 

The assumption that is wrong is that nothing cannot have alternative states of nothing, and that a universe of 'nothing' can be measured in terms of finite probability/time.

 

Before something, there may be infinite opportunities to create an alternative state of nothing (which occurs by itself.

 

By comparisom, the universe is a dynamic ultimately resulting from the differences between things, and a 'social' effect of the group of particles restricting their behavior to known 'laws', via various interactions at a so-called quantum level.

 

Before this emergence, there are no laws.

 

If there are no laws, there are no definable restrictions on the form of nothing.

 

Thus, forms that may generate phenomena in interaction - a 'something' - becomes infinitely probable, since it has from our post creation point of view, forever to produce it..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont understand your proposition, how can alternate forms of nothing occur, this to me is a play on semantics, nothing is just that nothing and has no alternate forms. it is similar to saying there are multiple truths, another play on the meaning of words, there is in fact only one type of nothing not many variant forms.

 

given eternity i dont see how nothing could produce somthing, since no laws restrict it. Nothing has no characteristics by nature so to say alternate forms apart from each other requires identification of difference by characteristics.

 

elaborate if you will to show how the assumption that there cannot be alternate states of nothing, because it seems these alternate states would have characteristics meaning they are something not nothing. i see nothing as just that nothing, with no potential for anything or for something and given eternity nothing would never produce a something hence the infinite and eternal reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I produced a thread on this.

 

Nothing becomes something, because if there was nothing, there is nothing to stop nothing becomming something.

 

The assumption that is wrong is that nothing cannot have alternative states of nothing, and that a universe of 'nothing' can be measured in terms of finite probability/time.

 

Before something, there may be infinite opportunities to create an alternative state of nothing (which occurs by itself.

 

By comparisom, the universe is a dynamic ultimately resulting from the differences between things, and a 'social' effect of the group of particles restricting their behavior to known 'laws', via various interactions at a so-called quantum level.

 

Before this emergence, there are no laws.

 

If there are no laws, there are no definable restrictions on the form of nothing.

 

Thus, forms that may generate phenomena in interaction - a 'something' - becomes infinitely probable, since it has from our post creation point of view, forever to produce it..

 

That really makes no sense...perhaps you can clarify your point if you define your meaning of Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah!

 

OK chaps, now I've lured you in!

 

Why can nothing have an alternative state?

 

Because there is nothing to actually stop it from doing so. The 'something' emerges through the way they interact, I believe.

 

Evidence? All around, this evidence that nothing had to have had an alternate state.

 

Or else, we go back to square 1; "Before the universe what was there? "God". Before god what was there?"

 

i dont understand your proposition, how can alternate forms of nothing occur, this to me is a play on semantics, nothing is just that nothing and has no alternate forms. it is similar to saying there are multiple truths, another play on the meaning of words, there is in fact only one type of nothing not many variant forms.

 

given eternity i dont see how nothing could produce somthing, since no laws restrict it. Nothing has no characteristics by nature so to say alternate forms apart from each other requires identification of difference by characteristics.

 

elaborate if you will to show how the assumption that there cannot be alternate states of nothing, because it seems these alternate states would have characteristics meaning they are something not nothing. i see nothing as just that nothing, with no potential for anything or for something and given eternity nothing would never produce a something hence the infinite and eternal reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing(it is all that ever has existed) exists before god, something, better yet some non-thing outside of space-time(since matter cannot be eternal, nor is this universe infinite) had to exist for anything to exist. Nothing came before god because outside of time, there is no beginning-end or no linearity thus no need for cause, it is eternal and infinite. Cause-effect relationship only exists linearly because of time, but anything outside of time does not have to operate in this dimension.

 

Your evidence is the same evidence i use to decipher that nothing never existed however, i dont think "alternate states of nothing" existed to make the something, rather, i deduce that something has always existed-god. Iassume your alternate state of nothing is in fact something. Not another state of nothing since this doesn't make logical sense to me.

 

Nothing can not have a alternative state because in order to have an alternate state characteristics must be subscribed to the "nothing" and in reality this nothing is actually something once attributes are assigned. How can it be alternate if not different, are you saying there are different types of nothing, that is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Nothing" exists only so long as it is useful for intellectual masturbation and/or the continued employment/financial enrichment of silly philosophers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any comments or ideas?

 

There simply is.

 

In other words, "why?" assumes antecedent factors. But existence exists. Asking why presumes you can explain it in a method beyond existence; explaining existence in terms of non-existence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why can nothing have an alternative state?

 

Because there is nothing to actually stop it from doing so. The 'something' emerges through the way they interact, I believe.

 

Evidence? All around, this evidence that nothing had to have had an alternate state.

 

Or else, we go back to square 1; "Before the universe what was there? "God". Before god what was there?"

How can NOTHING be an "it". "No-thing" can't "exist" nor can time exist because in order for time to exist at lest two things have to be apart from one another, the space between is measurable by the relative distance.

 

2) God/Supreme being/The force, what ever you want to call "it"... has never not existed.

What your implying is that God was created from nothing. Thats like saying a Rolex watch was created/Evolved from nothing...can't happen. Something has to be "First cause" There has to be some intelligent factor in creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree, except for a minor objection to some of the semantics here. "First" "before" and such terms imply a temporal causal-chain, which is quite problematic given that God/Reality encompasses/produces such, and does not operate as part of a "larger" causal context. God/Universe/Reality is not part of a temporal framework, it IS the framework. And it is Infinite.

 

Time/temporal-dimension is really only specific to our singular human perspective. There can be no "before God" or "before the big-bang (or multiverse if you prefer)". There just IS. There are no alternatives. There is no nothingness. It cannot be conceived of, nor can it "exist".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree, except for a minor objection to some of the semantics here. "First" "before" and such terms imply a temporal causal-chain, which is quite problematic given that God/Reality encompasses/produces such, and does not operate as part of a "larger" causal context. God/Universe/Reality is not part of a temporal framework, it IS the framework. And it is Infinite.

 

Time/temporal-dimension is really only specific to our singular human perspective. There can be no "before God" or "before the big-bang (or multiverse if you prefer)". There just IS. There are no alternatives. There is no nothingness. It cannot be conceived of, nor can it "exist".

 

I HAVE to mention, for my own vindication, that you're arguing for immanence over transcendence, here :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nothing" exists only so long as it is useful for intellectual masturbation and/or the continued employment/financial enrichment of silly philosophers.

 

To wane prosaic for a moment, the calculus would wax nigh impossible without nought. That's when economics would truly become the zero-sum game. In all seriousness, without the empty set and the null set, you'd be pretty hard pressed in a lot of practical areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There simply is.

 

In other words, "why?" assumes antecedent factors. But existence exists. Asking why presumes you can explain it in a method beyond existence; explaining existence in terms of non-existence.

 

 

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly (I could be reading between the lines), exactly. One isnt going to get far trying to describe non/pre-duality using a dualistic language/thought structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To wane prosaic for a moment, the calculus would wax nigh impossible without nought. That's when economics would truly become the zero-sum game. In all seriousness, without the empty set and the null set, you'd be pretty hard pressed in a lot of practical areas.

 

I don't think of the concept of "zero" and the concept of "nothingness" in the same way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×