Why is there something rather than nothing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hangnail
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
The bruising which appears at the very edge of our universe.
Click to expand...
There doesn’t appear to much more scientific evidence for the existence of the multiverse that there is for the existence of God.
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the HYPOTHETICAL set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.
Click to expand...
(source: Wikipedia: Multiverse)
Click to expand...
The multiverse hypothesis is a source of debate within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry.[2]
Click to expand...
(source: Wikipedia: Multiverse)
Click to expand...
 
Tomdstone said:
Does God change? Before 1 AD, He did not have a human form. After 1 AD, He assumed a human form.
Click to expand...
It’s a creative question. But the multiverse as a whole is a sum of beings. God is not a being per se; but the act of being. There is no “before” and “after” relative to this. Christ changes but that’s why we distinguish two natures in him, divine and human. Only the latter is relative to space and time.
 
Tomdstone said:
How can God be simple if He became man and while on earth presented a different tone from that which we see in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
If you look at a ball through a kaleidoscope, the ball will seem much more complex than the simple, round thing it really is. Spacetime is our kaleidoscope.
 
belorg said:
You said, “There is something rather than nothing because it is impossible for there to be nothing.” That means that complete nothingness leads to a contradiction. So, there has to be something. Now, there are a whole bunch of “somethings” beside God, that have the advantage of being much simpler.
Click to expand...
According to clasical theism that is not the case. The simplicity of God is precisely the reason why He can serve as the ultimate explantion:

Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple

The article also deals with various objections.
 
belorg said:
But much less simple than an impersonal being.
Click to expand...
Impersonal beings, at their simplest, carry many observable complexities due to their physical nature. A spiritual being such as God is inherently simpler even if we only consider the lack of physical properties.
 
Al_Moritz said:
According to clasical theism that is not the case. The simplicity of God is precisely the reason why He can serve as the ultimate explantion:.
Click to expand...
That’s correct. God is the most parsimonious explanation for why there is anything at all.
 
Tomdstone said:
Does God change? Before 1 AD, He did not have a human form. After 1 AD, He assumed a human form.
Click to expand...
God creates time.
The Lamb was/is slain at the foundation of the world.
This was revealed to us in time in the person of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, all I can do is provide you with words which do respond to your question, but at the same time perpetuate the illusion that this stuff can be understood as something out there.

One knows God through one’s relationship with Him, through love.
 
belorg said:
If it is impossible for there to be nothing, then that answers your question.Adding “God” to the equation is redundant, at least as an answer to this particular question.
Click to expand...
From the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques 2, Does God Exist

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

Now Thomas argues in ques 3 and following that God is simple, but that this simplicity means that God is a perfect being, lacking no reality that can exist. Therefore God, who is absolutely simple by his nature or essence, is all that can be since he is perfect being. But he is being without composition, that is without limits, so he is being by necessity. And because he is necessary he can and does cause the existnece of those things which have no necessity of being. They have being and necessity only because he has given it to them. But theirs is a dependent necessity, that is their necessity is a derived necessity.

Be sure to read Al’s reference to Feser’s blog.

Linus2nd
 
hangnail said:
Name one thing in the universe that is not contingent (not dependent on something else for its existence)?
Click to expand...
👍 It is highly significant that there has been no answer to your question. No one has ever given any hint of a reason why the universe must exist. Further impotence is revealed when it comes to answering the question “How is there something rather than nothing?”

The devil may be in some of the details but the Creator is in the entire panorama. 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
👍 It is highly significant that there has been no answer to your question. No one has ever given any hint of a reason why the universe must exist. Further impotence is revealed when it comes to answering the question “How is there something rather than nothing?”

The devil may be in some of the details but the Creator is in the entire panorama. 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m asking “why,” not “how.” These are two entirely different questions. I don’t think there is an “how.” God just is.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
From the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques 2, Does God Exist

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be,** then at one time there could have been nothing in existence**. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

Now Thomas argues in ques 3 and following that God is simple, but that this simplicity means that God is a perfect being, lacking no reality that can exist. Therefore God, who is absolutely simple by his nature or essence, is all that can be since he is perfect being. But he is being without composition, that is without limits, so he is being by necessity. And because he is necessary he can and does cause the existnece of those things which have no necessity of being. They have being and necessity only because he has given it to them. But theirs is a dependent necessity, that is their necessity is a derived necessity.
Click to expand...
Augustine argued that the world was made with time not in time. So, there was no time when the universe did not exist.

That’s something (or should I say “nothing”?) to think about.
 
hangnail said:
Augustine argued that the world was made with time not in time. So, there was no time when the universe did not exist.

That’s something (or should I say “nothing”?) to think about.
Click to expand...
All we have of both men is translations. On top of that you have to account for the evolution of the meaning of the terms in English over the span of perhaps a hundred or more years which can be considerable. The meaning of both men is the same; that is that time,arose or began with creation.

Pax
Linus2nd .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top