Why should there be nothing rather than something?

[Luke_K]

The familiar philosophical question goes, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” I’m asking: why is this a significant question? It seems self-evident why there is not nothing, because it’s an incoherent statement to say there IS a Non-Thing.

I have my own thoughts, but I’d like to hear yours.

 

[tonyrey]

Because there is nothing… to support the primacy of nothing!

 

[kaid100]

The question is normally made by people who are quite aware that there is “something”, to make the point that perhaps “nothing” existing is the more likely scenario- so why does something exist? Richard Dawkins calls the question “vacuous”, possibly because it’s often made by religious people as a debating point against atheists like him.

Until we know more about the details of the formation of the very early Universe, this question is probably not answerable.

 

[valentino]

Maybe I missing your pt.why should there be nothing?who says?There is something because there’s God.Is this answer to simple?

 

[tonyrey]

The question is normally made by people who are quite aware that there is “something”, to make the point that perhaps “nothing” existing is the more likely scenario- so why does something exist? Richard Dawkins calls the question “vacuous”, possibly because it’s often made by religious people as a debating point against atheists like him.

Until we know more about the details of the formation of the very early Universe, this question is probably not answerable.

The more usual (and intelligent) question is “Why should there be something rather than nothing?” It is neither self-evident nor reasonable to suppose everything has come from nothing. So the “logical” answer to the question:

“Why should there be nothing rather than something?” is

“Because nothing is easier to explain than something. It requires no explanation whereas something does!”

 

[Windfish]

The familiar philosophical question goes, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” I’m asking: why is this a significant question? It seems self-evident why there is not nothing, because it’s an incoherent statement to say there IS a Non-Thing.

I have my own thoughts, but I’d like to hear yours.

Because existence is not necessarily a brute fact, a given. I didn’t exist at one point, and then, at another point, I came into existence. Why should we think the whole of everything material/created/whatever is any different?

 

[yppop]

The more usual (and intelligent) question is “Why should there be something rather than nothing?” It is neither self-evident nor reasonable to suppose everything has come from nothing. So the “logical” answer to the question:

“Why should there be nothing rather than something?” is

“Because nothing is easier to explain than something. It requires no explanation whereas something does!”

TR,

Hate to differ, but I think it just the opposite: it is easier to explain something than to explain nothing.

An apple is something. I am something. A volume space is something. Water is something. A song is something, and on and on.

Explain nothing. Give one example.

Yppop

 

[tonyrey]

*The more usual (and intelligent) question is “Why should there be something rather than nothing?” It is neither self-evident nor reasonable to suppose everything has come from nothing. So the “logical” answer to the question:

My answer was intended to be facetious but I think it may contain a grain of truth.
It is easier to explain the existence of something than to explain the existence of “nothing” but the existence of “nothing” doesn’t require explanation.

If nothing existed nothing would need explanation! I don’t mean an explanation of “nothing” would have to be given but that it would be unnecessary. Nor would there be anyone to do the explaining!

“Nothing” really means the absence of everything! And if there has never been anything - let alone everything - no questions can arise.

Have I made myself clear? It’s too early in the day to be sure…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The familiar philosophical question goes, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” I’m asking: why is this a significant question? It seems self-evident why there is not nothing, because it’s an incoherent statement to say there IS a Non-Thing.

I have my own thoughts, but I’d like to hear yours.

That contradiction, and it is an actual logical contradiction is the basis of my metaphysical worldview. The contradiction “no-thing exists” which can be demonstrated as “Thing=notThing” is a straight up violation of the law of Non-Contradiction, A=notA. Logical contradictions represent impossibilities in our rational worldview. So the answer to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Is “Because there is no other logically possible state of reality.” I bring this together with Mulla Sadr ideas of Primacy of Existence, and Saint Thomas’ Actus Purus to form a panentheist view. Namely that G-d is both Immanent and Transcendent thats uselful to explain the omniattributes. Its also useful to stop the infinite regress argument because one cannot regress to the to the idea of an existent “nothing” without hitting the contradiction.

 

[Luke_K]

Because existence is not necessarily a brute fact, a given. I didn’t exist at one point, and then, at another point, I came into existence. Why should we think the whole of everything material/created/whatever is any different?

Well, certainly nothingness isn’t a brute fact either? A lot of people take nothingness as the base assumption about reality, but the concept of there being absolutely nothing seems incoherent and incomprehensible to me. So perhaps existence can be taken as a given solely based on the absurdity of the opposite proposition?

 

[Windfish]

Well, certainly nothingness isn’t a brute fact either? A lot of people take nothingness as the base assumption about reality, but the concept of there being absolutely nothing seems incoherent and incomprehensible to me. So perhaps existence can be taken as a given solely based on the absurdity of the opposite proposition?

Why is it so incoherent? Is it incoherent to say that my children do not exist yet? I am still in school and a long ways off from marriage. In the same way, why can’t there simply be an absence of everything? Picturing it in our minds will make it seem incoherent because there is nothing to picture! But if it is not incoherent to say that my children do not exist, I do not think it is incoherent for there to “be” nothing, an absence of everything.

 

[Windfish]

Hmm, I might have to revise my thinking in light of what warpspeedpetey said. Gotta hit the books again.

 

[Luke_K]

Why is it so incoherent? Is it incoherent to say that my children do not exist yet? I am still in school and a long ways off from marriage. In the same way, why can’t there simply be an absence of everything? Picturing it in our minds will make it seem incoherent because there is nothing to picture! But if it is not incoherent to say that my children do not exist, I do not think it is incoherent for there to “be” nothing, an absence of everything.

Well, just become some things do not exist, doesn’t mean it’s coherent to say that its possible for absolutely nothing to exist.

I mean, it seems as simple to me as existence must exist by the very definition. To assert that existence could not exist is a contradiction, and so absolute nothingness is indeed incoherent.

 

[yppop]

Hmm, I might have to revise my thinking in light of what warpspeedpetey said. Gotta hit the books again.

WF
Don’t bother hitting the books because WSP is absolutley correct. I just arrive at the same conclusion differently, but I lke WSP’s explanation better.
Yppop

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I do not think it is incoherent for there to “be” nothing, an absence of everything.

I am greatly saddened by your statement Windfish. When one speaks of objective “truth” one is speaking about the objective reality of “things”; and when one speaks of nothing one can only mean that there is an absence of some potential being or thing from actual reality. How is it that you have not come to the conclusion that “absolute nothing” has no objective reality and thus cannot “exist”? Truth is a function of actual reality. There is no objective truth without it, and thus it cannot be “true” that absolutely nothing can exist; can be a “thing”. In absolutely nothing there is absolutely no truth, and here in lies the contradiction with the idea that it could possibly be objectively true that there was or will ever be an act of “absolutely nothing”. Its a contradiction because if it were true, it would be an objective thing which is real, and thus would not be truly absolutely nothing. It would have an act of reality in so far as it would have an act of objective truth.

Thus it follows quite simple that there is a necessary perfect timeless act of reality, or objective truth if you prefer. When somebodies say that Gods is truth, he really is “objective truth”, for God is the act of reality.

Windfish…:nope:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

WF
Don’t bother hitting the books because WSP is absolutley correct. I just arrive at the same conclusion differently, but I lke WSP’s explanation better.
Yppop

That’s strange coming from you “yppop”.
You are the one that advocates the idea that “God is nothing”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because existence is not necessarily a brute fact, a given.

Potential essence is not a brute fact; as in, that which is in the act of becoming, is not a necessary being. You idea of existence is quite materialistic, I must say.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It seems self-evident why there is not nothing, because it’s an incoherent statement to say there IS a Non-Thing.

I have my own thoughts, but I’d like to hear yours.

Quite correct. But this is not obvious to some people, because they take reality for granted. For example, many people assume that real is simply what they percieve with the senses and it is evident that those things tend to cease to exist; it is evident that there is a becoming of things, that there is a potentility to things. Therefore if such things can cease to be, then why not all things. Thus the question will appear quite resonable to a person who makes that assumption.

I think the question is a good one, not because its rational, but because it forces us to make a distiction between the act of reality and the essential natures (sense objects) of that by which and through which we have intelectual knowledge of existence. In so doing the very idea that reality is simply that which is measurable by the senses begins to fall appart and so does philosophical naturalism once the logical consequances of that knowledge reaches full frutation.