The atheists I know are very intelligent people and would never be satisfied with an answer to the question “Where did all this stuff come from?” to be it doesn’t matter. It’s here so let’s deal with it… or am I reading you incorrectly? If a student asked an atheist teacher where did all this matter come from… they wouldn’t say…it just is. Would they? That’s the answer? Then I don’t understand how there could be atheists… I’m not an atheist, but that answer would not satisfy me…
And most atheists would tell you to speak for yourself.
#NotAllAtheists think the existence of the universe requires no explanation. The “why” question is often regarded as an invalid question because it presumes some kind of intent and excludes indifferent natural forces.I didn’t know the rule “if a ‘why’ question presumes some kind of intent and excludes indifferent natural forces, then it is invalid”. Please clarify what is that “kind of intent” that renders the question invalid, what are those “indifferent natural forces” that the invalid ‘why’ question excludes, and who gave authority to the inventor of the rule? (Isn’t he just saying “I can’t respond to some ‘why’ questions, so please don’t ask me?”).And most atheists would tell you to speak for yourself.
English is not my native language, but I’ll try to explain it as best as I can.
Did you invent the rule, Cheiron?
What rule? I wasn’t talking about any rule. I only said that the why-question with regard to the existence of the universe is not a sensible question, for the reason I already mentioned in previous posts. And that’s why this:
is way off-topic. You ask me to defend a position I don’t hold.
It sounds like you are making ‘much ado about nothing’.OK, let’s try again, because the thread is already deteriorating. And it took only a few posts. Depressing.
NOTHING is simply a concept, an abstraction. It designates the LACK of existence. To say that “NOTHING exists” is to postulate that “non-existence” “exists”. Which is simply a logical contradiction.
Or in other words you are putting words in others mouths that simply are not there. I don’t know anyone who claims that nothing is an entity that exists. So it seems your objection is meaningless.Then you would agree that something can not arise out of nothing? . That is why theists object to the notion of something coming from nothing or what philosophers call non-being. It is a philosophical question that science can not answer. If the universe for instance has a beginning this would imply that at one time it did not exist. And if it did not exist then that means it could not begin to exist without an outside cause, for the very reason that it did not exist to be able to bring itself into existence.
In classical theism God is not a brute fact. The concept of divine simplicity explains this. God is the source of existence, change, etc. A brute fact would be Imagining for instance a spaghetti monster who created everything. There is no rational reason we should expect a monster made of spaghetti as the Creator. If we were to accept this it would have to be accepted as a brute fact.
The term “nothing” is very peculiar, and if we adopt a very strict attitude towards its use we would be in trouble every time we use it. For example, when you say that “‘nothing’ is the total and complete nonexistance of everything”, you are absurd: You should not use the verb ‘is’ with the grammatical subject ‘nothing’.OK, let’s try again, because the thread is already deteriorating. And it took only a few posts. Depressing.
NOTHING is simply a concept, an abstraction. It designates the LACK of existence. To say that “NOTHING exists” is to postulate that “non-existence” “exists”. Which is simply a logical contradiction.
Therefore to ask “how could something come out of nothing” or “why is there something rather than nothing?” are meaningless concoctions of words. By the way, “nothing” is not simply a vacuum, it is the total and complete nonexistence of everything. Not just the lack of existence of physical entities.
Questions cannot go to infinity. One must stop somewhere at an unexplained and unexplainable FACT (usually called “brute fact”). For believers this point is “God”. God is the “final” explanation. God needs no explanation. The question: “where did God come from?” or “why does God exist?” are meaningless questions for the believers. Their answer, if they are willing to contemplate such a question at all, would be: “God simply exists”.
Let’s try it again from here onwards.
Your “reason” was not satisfactory to me (actually, there was no reason), and that is why I asked you my questions. But if you prefer not to answer them, that is fine to me.
That is trueIt sounds like you are making ‘much ado about nothing’.
And that is the point.The question “why is there something, rather than nothing” IMPLIES that “nothing” is an ontological object.
I say that the sentence or question is meaningless.
Another meaningless proposition. Time is not independent from the universe. It is meaningless to speak about “before” the universe or “outside” the universe. As a matter of fact the word “universe” means “everything that exists”.
Are you including God within “everything that exists”?
The term “nothing” has two distinct meanings: as a “concept” or “abstraction” it certainly exists, however it has no referent in the objective reality. So there is no problem in using: “nothing, as an ontological object does not exist”. And conversely “nothing, as a concept does exist”.
Indeed. The problem is the “sufficiency”. For ages people had no problem with accepting that evil demons are the cause of many maladies.
The concept of “contingent” and “necessary” beings is another useless philosophical concoction. They come from the idea of “possible worlds”, where something is “necessary” if it exists in every possible world, and “contingent” if it exists in some possible world, but not all of them. A possible world is a state of affairs which does not contain logically contradictory objects or events. As such it is easy to prove (logically!) that there are no “necessary” beings. All one has to do is to posit a world W[sub]1[/sub] and a world W[sub]2[/sub], which have no objects in common. Example could be a W[sub]1[/sub], which only contains ONE electron and a W[sub]2[/sub], which contains ONE positron. Since these are two possible worlds and their intersection is a “null-set” or “nothing” (both are abstractions
) we have proven that the “necessary” existence is a bogus concept.If God exists, then YES. Again, God, as a concept certainly exists, the question is if this concept has an ontological referent in the objective reality. After all the concept of a “married bachelor” does exist, but it does not have a referent in the reality.
What’s a concept? How does one form one?
If “nothing” as a “concept” does exist, then it is an ontological object. And if it really is a concept in your mind, then you conceive something when you think on it. Therefore, nothing is something.
If what you say was true, there would be, for example, no Relativistic Physics. Once Newton was able to formulate hypothesis, verify them and make predictions that could be corroborated, it would have been the end of Physics. Fortunately, scientists do not share your ideas. On the other hand, the methods you use to study interactions cannot be the same you use when you study relations. That is why it would be preposterous to request a “verification” instead of a proof to a mathematician. The method you use depends on the class of objects you are studying.
I don’t follow you, please clarify.
Before I make a comment on this…, you have spoken about the notion of “necessary being”, but not about the notion of “contingent being”. How is it also, in your opinion, a bogus and useless “concept”?The concept of “contingent” and “necessary” beings is another useless philosophical concoction. They come from the idea of “possible worlds”, where something is “necessary” if it exists in every possible world, and “contingent” if it exists in some possible world, but not all of them. A possible world is a state of affairs which does not contain logically contradictory objects or events. As such it is easy to prove (logically!) that there are no “necessary” beings. All one has to do is to posit a world W[sub]1[/sub] and a world W[sub]2[/sub], which have no objects in common. Example could be a W[sub]1[/sub], which only contains ONE electron and a W[sub]2[/sub], which contains ONE positron. Since these are two possible worlds and their intersection is a “null-set” or “nothing” (both are abstractions
Please stop playing with words. Objects and concepts are two different “entities”. Objects exist independently from us, while concepts are formed by us. Concepts have no independent existence. We are able to create all sorts of concepts, some of which have objective referents, while others do not. In the fairy tales there are all sorts imaginary beings, which do not exist in the objective reality.
In other words, “nothing” as the “actual state of affairs” does not and cannot exist, as such the question: “why is there something rather than nothing?” is nonsensical.
That is what I said.
Since the available time and resources are finite, one must select which branches of the unknowns will one pursue. The “stopping” point is usually provisional. All we need to do is stay open to the possibility that our current understanding MAY be incorrect. For the time being all the experiments which attempted to verify the existence of “paranormal” failed. It is reasonable to state that one should not waste time on investigating it. But if some group of people wish to do it, let them. And if they would arrive at a result which merits attention, then it will be investigated by science. Should we still continue to investigate the properties of “luminiferous ether”? Or should one still contemplate how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?
“We know”? I doubt it. But I am open to some argument why is positing the universe “insufficient”. The trouble is that positing an “external cause” for the universe is exactly as nonsensical as asking: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?”
Sigh. “Ask and you will receive” and “knock and the door will be opened”. These propositions are tested millions of time every day. People pray for all sorts of things. Sometimes, once in a blue moon one of these prayers gets “answered” in a “positive” fashion. The apologists hasten to declare: “you see, prayer works!”. They take it as a “verification” of their hypothesis. And then they conveniently forget about the millions of prayers which are NOT fulfilled - and as such they “falsify” their hypothesis. They are guilty of selective sampling.
Since the two go hand it hand, the solution is obvious. The distinction between so-called “necessary” and “contingent” beings is meaningless. On a causative chain of “A”-> “B” → “C”, “B” is contingent upon “A” and necessary in relation to “C”. The concept of “necessary” and “contingent” can only be applied relative to a causative chain, not in an absolute fashion.
Oh! So, what is the insight that we can gain if we reject the misconceptions that you have mentioned? Please, enlighten me.Please stop playing with words. Objects and concepts are two different “entities”. Objects exist independently from us, while concepts are formed by us. Concepts have no independent existence. We are able to create all sorts of concepts, some of which have objective referents, while others do not. In the fairy tales there are all sorts imaginary beings, which do not exist in the objective reality.
In other words, “nothing” as the “actual state of affairs” does not and cannot exist, as such the question: “why is there something rather than nothing?” is nonsensical.
That is what I said.
Since the available time and resources are finite, one must select which branches of the unknowns will one pursue. The “stopping” point is usually provisional. All we need to do is stay open to the possibility that our current understanding MAY be incorrect. For the time being all the experiments which attempted to verify the existence of “paranormal” failed. It is reasonable to state that one should not waste time on investigating it. But if some group of people wish to do it, let them. And if they would arrive at a result which merits attention, then it will be investigated by science. Should we still continue to investigate the properties of “luminiferous ether”? Or should one still contemplate how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?
“We know”? I doubt it. But I am open to some argument why is positing the universe “insufficient”. The trouble is that positing an “external cause” for the universe is exactly as nonsensical as asking: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?”
Sigh. “Ask and you will receive” and “knock and the door will be opened”. These propositions are tested millions of time every day. People pray for all sorts of things. Sometimes, once in a blue moon one of these prayers gets “answered” in a “positive” fashion. The apologists hasten to declare: “you see, prayer works!”. They take it as a “verification” of their hypothesis. And then they conveniently forget about the millions of prayers which are NOT fulfilled - and as such they “falsify” their hypothesis. They are guilty of selective sampling.
Since the two go hand it hand, the solution is obvious. The distinction between so-called “necessary” and “contingent” beings is meaningless. On a causative chain of “A”-> “B” → “C”, “B” is contingent upon “A” and necessary in relation to “C”. The concept of “necessary” and “contingent” can only be applied relative to a causative chain, not in an absolute fashion.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasted a considerable time on giving you a detailed reply to your post (for every paragraph of it) and then you offer a vague one-liner question as a “response”? That is not the way a conversation is supposed to be conducted.
You never answered my question. It might be helpful for you.