(February 12, 2018 at 1:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: It would be up to the atheist to explain everything without logical contradictions. Proving that possible worlds semantics must assume existence is a far cry from having an explanatory ultimate for it. You can't use logic to create existence (a concept has no causal power)--you must answer the actual question--why is there something rather than nothing. If you listen to Dean Rickles again, you will notice that he never actually answers the question posed to him. You can say that is a meaningless question, but that is really just part and parcel to admitting you are stuck with a brute fact--a fact you can't explain.
We know the universe exists, and we can prove it. Have you an example of a nothing that could exist in it's place?
To ask why is there A and not B, we first both have to be sure that A and B are possibilities, we know that A (The universe) does exist, there is no, not universe to exist is there ?
The reason he says it is meaningless as I understand it is because nothing is not a possible scenario. It's a bit like asking why is that cloud not a non cloud.
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
