Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(October 22, 2014 at 10:52 pm)datc Wrote: I ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?
The question is befuddling. Why should there be nothing rather than what we have around us? Why privilege either "nothing" or "something"? Why cannot this world be everything that has ever been and will be?
[...]
Let possible world Empty be defined as follows: ForAll(X I can think of)[X does not exist in Empty]. Then
(1) Nothing = ThereExists[Empty]. We are dealing with "universes," uni = "one," so any possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs. As a result, Empty swallows up every other reality, so it is not necessary to say "there exists only Empty."
Let our actual world be called Earth. Then
(2) Something = ThereExists[Earth].
Neither is privileged.
In this case, it does not matter that Earth may have existed forever and will continue to do so indefinitely. We are not looking for a physical cause prior in time to Earth. Moreover, once Earth exists, I grant that it may be forever imperishable. First, there are no "predators" outside it that may kill it. Second, material objects, though they can in the course of their lives change from one form into another and even into energy, nevertheless seem imperishable. We might say that they "follow the law" so faithfully that they are granted immortality. They fear disobedience so much as to persevere in being forever.
I really hope you mean universe and not Earth, because the Earth has a beginning after our previous sun went nova. Plus, Earth does have predators: black holes, wandering planets and stars, and also our own sun.
Quote:But we are seeking an explanation of why (1) is false and (2) is true.
For (2) is a contingent proposition. The question is not what, if anything, preceded Earth in time in the actual world, but why the non-necessary situation prevails.
If it is not explicitly forbitten, then a possible situation will prevail eventually. That is what quantum mechanics tells us.
Quote:We ask for an explanation why (2) which is contingent and certainly need not be true is in fact true. But to explain something is to reduce it to a cause.
The requirement of a cause is unjustified. In fact, we know of plenty of things in nature that are uncaused. For example, nuclear decays are uncaussed. Nothing makes the nucleus decay; it decays on its own. Another example is an electron dropping to a lower energy state and releasing a photon. There is no force causing it. The electron just has another energy state it can be at, and it has some probability of ending up there.
Quote:We certainly do not explain why "2 + 2 = 4" is true, because it's a necessary truth, if there was one. If pressed, we say that it is true due to the logical and arithmetical structure of the human mind. The opposite is neither conceivable nor possible, because possible worlds are imagined by human minds, and their ideal content is unavoidably constrained by the structure of these minds.
You clearly never spend time with a group of drunken mathematicians. There are certain axioms you must take to get to 2+2=4. However, you can create another set of axioms that give an internally consistent view.
And the rest of your argument about "goodness" is crap that I'll leave to someone to dispute.
October 23, 2014 at 1:17 am (This post was last modified: October 23, 2014 at 1:22 am by Anomalocaris.)
(October 22, 2014 at 10:52 pm)datc Wrote: Hi, atheist folks. I wonder if you can find flaws in the following argument. If it holds, it'll be part of a book.
[hide]I ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?
The question is befuddling. Why should there be nothing rather than what we have around us? Why privilege either "nothing" or "something"? Why cannot this world be everything that has ever been and will be?
On the one hand, we humans privilege nothing readily. We apparently come from nothing and go into nothing. In between we live for a little bit, always in danger, such that if we don't struggle with all our might, the nothing will arrive even quicker. All living things are born, thereby beginning to exist, and die, thereby ceasing to exist. But the inference from this human experience to the universe as a whole need not be taken.
Moreover, "something" is also privileged. The moment we are born, we are surrounded with stuff to use, enjoy, and manipulate. Disembodied existence, while not inconceivable, is not part of our human experience. But "nothingness" is inconceivable; one can't close his eyes and picture nothingness.
However, that nothingness is inconceivable does not mean that it is impossible.
Let possible world Empty be defined as follows: ForAll(X I can think of)[X does not exist in Empty]. Then
(1) Nothing = ThereExists[Empty]. We are dealing with "universes," uni = "one," so any possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs. As a result, Empty swallows up every other reality, so it is not necessary to say "there exists only Empty."
Let our actual world be called Earth. Then
(2) Something = ThereExists[Earth].
Neither is privileged.
In this case, it does not matter that Earth may have existed forever and will continue to do so indefinitely. We are not looking for a physical cause prior in time to Earth. Moreover, once Earth exists, I grant that it may be forever imperishable. First, there are no "predators" outside it that may kill it. Second, material objects, though they can in the course of their lives change from one form into another and even into energy, nevertheless seem imperishable. We might say that they "follow the law" so faithfully that they are granted immortality. They fear disobedience so much as to persevere in being forever.
But we are seeking an explanation of why (1) is false and (2) is true.
For (2) is a contingent proposition. The question is not what, if anything, preceded Earth in time in the actual world, but why the non-necessary situation prevails. I admit that Earth may never have begun; suppose it always has existed, with time going into the past into actual infinity. I do not consider this either unintelligible or impossible.
We ask for an explanation why (2) which is contingent and certainly need not be true is in fact true. But to explain something is to reduce it to a cause. For example, say, Smith throws a stone which breaks a window. This, too, is a contingent event. We explain why the window was broken by implicating Smith, his actions, the stone, etc. If there is determinism, then we can extend our explanation backward in time forever.
We certainly do not explain why "2 + 2 = 4" is true, because it's a necessary truth, if there was one. If pressed, we say that it is true due to the logical and arithmetical structure of the human mind. The opposite is neither conceivable nor possible, because possible worlds are imagined by human minds, and their ideal content is unavoidably constrained by the structure of these minds.
I fully admit that the cause of (2)'s being true, call it C2, is different from the cause of the broken window, CB, because both CB and its effect, the breaking of the window, are situated in time, with cause preceding the effect; while (2), being an abstract proposition is in any case timeless; it cannot be said to exist either in the past, present, or future. Regardless, it must have some kind of cause.
This cause must have been presented with a choice to make either (1) or (2) true and chose (2). This choice of words does not imply anything regarding the type of causation, whether it was physical, teleological, or some other third type. Note that C2 could not be random, because any random selection still presupposes a mechanism or environment to generate randomness.
How then did C2 make (2) true? By joining Earth with existence, i.e., by creating Earth. As a result, (2)'s being true has a "cause," and Earth's existing has a "ground" of its existence. This ground is called God.
An obvious question that can be asked by an atheist at this point is: When was Earth's essence joined to its existence, given the assumption that Earth is everlasting, i.e., without beginning or end? In reply I suggest that God is eternal, defined as "simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life": for God, the 4 time periods are folded up, unified as if in a package and present themselves as single eternal moment of boiling divine life. Earth was united with its existence not at any moment in time but as a whole in eternity which "covers" merely everlasting existence.
This is only half the task. Now we ask: What is this God? It cannot be another real thing, for then it, too, would stand in need of its own ground. It must then be "beyond" being. The only non-thing that can conceivably fit that description is "goodness."
Goodness is not a thing but a kind of force, a primal principle that permeates all, that creates this world, so that its inhabitants might enjoy life or try to. That is what we mean when we say "God." Goodness is not a thing but Creator of things. As a result, in the beginning, there was a kind of clean slate, in which whatever is created (by goodness) could be made into a top-notch project or performance from ground up, with no need for backward compatibility.
Now if goodness reigned, then in the beginning (of our story), there could not be anything, because only goodness creates good things, and nothing can exist whose existence goodness has not authorized.
Our options are: (a) goodness + nothing in the beginning and (b) a good thing, i.e., the universe, in the beginning. Goodness implies "nothing," and "nothing" implies goodness; and now we see that their combination, i.e., (a), is also implied.
I doubt a book from such a mind as could come up with this bullshit would likely be savageable by merely keeping this particular piece of bullshit out of it.
October 23, 2014 at 2:38 am (This post was last modified: October 23, 2014 at 3:24 am by Alex K.)
Quote:An obvious question that can be asked by an atheist at this point is: When was Earth's essence joined to its existence, given the assumption that Earth is everlasting
No, it can not be asked by an atheist, because it is a nonsensical question if our universe is everlasting in the past and future as you assume.
Quote: (2), being an abstract proposition is in any case timeless; it cannot be said to exist either in the past, present, or future. Regardless, it must have some kind of cause.
No.
Thank you for playing. Next...
Your propensity to use numbered propositions and contingent this or contingent that can not hide that the thoughts you present here in the first half of your text lack any rigorosity. The second half is just poetic babble and a heap of barely coherent assertions.
Well I give you that much, you didn't try to argue that the big bang needs a cause, therefore God.
(October 23, 2014 at 1:01 am)Surgenator Wrote: You clearly never spend time with a group of drunken mathematicians. There are certain axioms you must take to get to 2+2=4. However, you can create another set of axioms that give an internally consistent view
May I introduce you to my dear friend, the field Z_3...
2+2=1, and don't you deny it.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(October 23, 2014 at 12:16 am)datc Wrote: "Goddidit" is equivalent to the meaningless "Blargdidit."
You said it, brother!
Quote:But God is not a empty concept. I show in the OP that God is beyond being, good, and eternal. Those are not the only attributes of God, nor is the argument presented the only argument for God's existence.
I don't think you showed it as much as you just said it.
October 23, 2014 at 5:55 am (This post was last modified: October 23, 2014 at 5:57 am by bennyboy.)
(October 22, 2014 at 11:41 pm)datc Wrote:
(October 22, 2014 at 11:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote: . . . then cogito ergo ! ThereExists[Empty]
The very phrase "there is nothing" is self-contradictory: how come existence ("there is") is postulated of "no thing"?
But we say that and know what we mean.
We say that in the context of a framework: specifically, time and space. So when I say there's nothing in my hand, I mean that there is a lack of anything in the current time in that location. But the framework is mutually co-defined by the things located in it. For example, if there were no objects arranged in space, what would a kilometer mean? Nothing. If there were no light, then what would the speed of light be? Nothing. If there was no motion, then what would time mean?
So no, in the context of your framework-which-is-not-a-framework-for-anything, I do not in fact know what you mean-- either for things to be said to exist, or not to. It is a non-world, not an empty one.
October 23, 2014 at 6:16 am (This post was last modified: October 23, 2014 at 6:16 am by Ben Davis.)
(October 22, 2014 at 10:52 pm)datc Wrote: Hi, atheist folks. I wonder if you can find flaws in the following argument.
If it holds, it'll be part of a book.
I ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?
The question is befuddling. Why should there be nothing rather than what we have around us? Why privilege either "nothing" or "something"? Why cannot this world be everything that has ever been and will be?
On the one hand, we humans privilege nothing readily. We apparently come from nothing and go into nothing. In between we live for a little bit, always in danger, such that if we don't struggle with all our might, the nothing will arrive even quicker. All living things are born, thereby beginning to exist, and die, thereby ceasing to exist. But the inference from this human experience to the universe as a whole need not be taken.
Moreover, "something" is also privileged. The moment we are born, we are surrounded with stuff to use, enjoy, and manipulate. Disembodied existence, while not inconceivable, is not part of our human experience. But "nothingness" is inconceivable; one can't close his eyes and picture nothingness.
However, that nothingness is inconceivable does not mean that it is impossible.
Let possible world Empty be defined as follows: ForAll(X I can think of)[X does not exist in Empty]. Then
(1) Nothing = ThereExists[Empty]. We are dealing with "universes," uni = "one," so any possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs. As a result, Empty swallows up every other reality, so it is not necessary to say "there exists only Empty."
Let our actual world be called Earth. Then
(2) Something = ThereExists[Earth].
Neither is privileged.
In this case, it does not matter that Earth may have existed forever and will continue to do so indefinitely. We are not looking for a physical cause prior in time to Earth. Moreover, once Earth exists, I grant that it may be forever imperishable. First, there are no "predators" outside it that may kill it. Second, material objects, though they can in the course of their lives change from one form into another and even into energy, nevertheless seem imperishable. We might say that they "follow the law" so faithfully that they are granted immortality. They fear disobedience so much as to persevere in being forever.
But we are seeking an explanation of why (1) is false and (2) is true.
For (2) is a contingent proposition. The question is not what, if anything, preceded Earth in time in the actual world, but why the non-necessary situation prevails. I admit that Earth may never have begun; suppose it always has existed, with time going into the past into actual infinity. I do not consider this either unintelligible or impossible.
We ask for an explanation why (2) which is contingent and certainly need not be true is in fact true. But to explain something is to reduce it to a cause. For example, say, Smith throws a stone which breaks a window. This, too, is a contingent event. We explain why the window was broken by implicating Smith, his actions, the stone, etc. If there is determinism, then we can extend our explanation backward in time forever.
We certainly do not explain why "2 + 2 = 4" is true, because it's a necessary truth, if there was one. If pressed, we say that it is true due to the logical and arithmetical structure of the human mind. The opposite is neither conceivable nor possible, because possible worlds are imagined by human minds, and their ideal content is unavoidably constrained by the structure of these minds.
I fully admit that the cause of (2)'s being true, call it C2, is different from the cause of the broken window, CB, because both CB and its effect, the breaking of the window, are situated in time, with cause preceding the effect; while (2), being an abstract proposition is in any case timeless; it cannot be said to exist either in the past, present, or future. Regardless, it must have some kind of cause.
This cause must have been presented with a choice to make either (1) or (2) true and chose (2). This choice of words does not imply anything regarding the type of causation, whether it was physical, teleological, or some other third type. Note that C2 could not be random, because any random selection still presupposes a mechanism or environment to generate randomness.
How then did C2 make (2) true? By joining Earth with existence, i.e., by creating Earth. As a result, (2)'s being true has a "cause," and Earth's existing has a "ground" of its existence. This ground is called God.
An obvious question that can be asked by an atheist at this point is: When was Earth's essence joined to its existence, given the assumption that Earth is everlasting, i.e., without beginning or end? In reply I suggest that God is eternal, defined as "simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life": for God, the 4 time periods are folded up, unified as if in a package and present themselves as single eternal moment of boiling divine life. Earth was united with its existence not at any moment in time but as a whole in eternity which "covers" merely everlasting existence.
This is only half the task. Now we ask: What is this God? It cannot be another real thing, for then it, too, would stand in need of its own ground. It must then be "beyond" being. The only non-thing that can conceivably fit that description is "goodness."
Goodness is not a thing but a kind of force, a primal principle that permeates all, that creates this world, so that its inhabitants might enjoy life or try to. That is what we mean when we say "God." Goodness is not a thing but Creator of things. As a result, in the beginning, there was a kind of clean slate, in which whatever is created (by goodness) could be made into a top-notch project or performance from ground up, with no need for backward compatibility.
Now if goodness reigned, then in the beginning (of our story), there could not be anything, because only goodness creates good things, and nothing can exist whose existence goodness has not authorized.
Our options are: (a) goodness + nothing in the beginning and (b) a good thing, i.e., the universe, in the beginning. Goodness implies "nothing," and "nothing" implies goodness; and now we see that their combination, i.e., (a), is also implied.
Headline: Main flaw = word salad
Summary
- Flawed deconstruction of question leading to irrelevancies
- Analysis of irrelevancies rather than addressing the question
- Faulty assumptions
- Unfounded assumptions & assertions rather than evidence
Preliminary Conclusion: A waste of my time reading it.
(pester tibs via pm if you need invite) 
![[Image: tmPmhjd.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FtmPmhjd.jpg)
