Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Aoi Magi]

---

Why? Why can't it be sadness, evilness, darkness, and lochness.

Why reserve the term "goodness" for self-diffusion of God and not call the other two modes of causation, physical and teleological, good? There are two reasons. First, nature and men do not have to do good. Their actions need not have good consequences and often, in fact, do not, whereas

---

God's providence is presumably far superior in its ability to do good. Second, because physical causality and teleology, in making the world a better place, are motivated by the cause's own needs: to persevere in one's nature or to become happier. But God has no needs and acts solely so that good things may exist.

...ermm what is the basis for these assertions?
"Good" is a subjective term, what is good to you might be evil or bad to another.

For example, suppose that God was not completely happy and created because, say, He wanted company. Then it would no longer be true that God "wills nothing except by reason of its goodness." He would have created because of the utility to Him of the creation which would be good as a means to the satisfaction of God’s "selfish" ends. In other words, there would be an evil in God which the creation would help remedy; and therefore, the creation would spring from something evil rather than from something good.

And why would you suggest this is not the reality, especially when bible claims God created humans to worship him? And most other major religions also suggest a similar reason for creation....

---

Nothing is the absence of everything which is defined by a collection of something.

Yes, that is why our possible world Empty depends on the things you can think about that are absent in Empty. Possible worlds are ideal abstract (as opposed to real) objects and as such, they exist only in your mind. So do the ideas of things that we deny really exist in Empty.

Thus, you think of X = "a lion" or Y = "a unicorn" and say that neither X nor Y exists in Empty; and X does and Y does not exist in Earth.

---

In other words, X has both meaning and reference for Earth; Y has an ideal meaning ("a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead") but lacks a real reference; "Blarg" has neither meaning nor reference.

Actually in nothingness Blarg has more meaning than a lion or unicorn, which has a basis in reality and is tied to something.
Also going by your definition, goodness is something I can think of, so it has to be outside that set too, along with all other emotions and mental constructs.

---

What do you mean by imperishable exactly?

---

I mean that once Earth has been generated (come into existence), there is no possibility of its ever corrupting (going out of existence).

That there is matter is a contingent fact; there might never have been material objects in the universe. But once there are such objects, they cannot be destroyed as per the law of conservation of matter and energy.

Same with the universe as a whole: once it's here, it will exist forever.

Earth is a planet.
Big bang is not a universe.
And both earth and universe has "formed" from a different form of existence and will be destroyed, that is converted to a different form of existence eventually, that doesn't violate the law of conservation.

[Alex K]

2. What are the logical or physical objections to infinite causal regress?

There cannot exist an actually infinite number of real objects (as opposed to ideal objects like abstracta like numbers, sets, or possible worlds).

I don't buy that. But even if that were true, that's not the same as a infinite chain of causes.

---

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.

An atheist can object to my argument by pointing out that seemingly, at first glance, this question ("When was Earth's essence...?) has no answer.

Not only at first glance.

[Heywood]

I ask: Why is there something rather than nothing?

How many ways can there be nothing? Just one way. ThereExists[Empty].

How many ways can there be something? An infinite number of ways.
ThereExists[X].
ThereExists[Y].
ThereExists[Z]
ThereExists[X,Y,P]

Apply the principle of indifference and treat every possible configuration of ThereExist as equally likely. It is simply unlikely that for any given ThereExist, it will be ThereExists[Empty].

Imagine a vat full of marbles...an infinite number of them. All the marbles are white except one. One marble is red. The red marble represents ThereExist[nothing]. The white marbles represent different configurations of ThereExist[Something]. Is it possible that you could randomly draw the red marble? Sure. What is the probability of drawing the red marble? Its 0.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because while it is possible for ThereExist[nothing] to be the case, the probability it will be the case is 0.

[Cyberman]

This thread is comedy gold! Best laugh I've had in ages!

@datc:

When I asked why you think "God" is a male, it was from the same curiosity that wants to know why you capitalise the word 'god'. Your bafflegab about male and female aspects of nature contains zero useful information. Nature's god is masculine; well, how did you arrive at that conclusion and how would we set about verifying it? If it's merely an aspect of nature, does it possess intelligence? Awareness? If not, are you merely referring to it as "God" for the same silly reason you gave for referring to the Universe as Earth?

If this is an entity you are trying to define into existence, is it male in the sense of having male genitalia? A beard? Middle age spread?

These might seem trivial questions to you, but from my point of view you're trying to eat your cake and have it too.

And I don't care if you think this is irrelevant to the ad hoc assertions you want to mislabel as "proof". You need to be prepared to defend every card you play, including the palmed ones. This is one I picked up on and intend to examine.

[datc]

"Good" is a subjective term, what is good to you might be evil or bad to another.

It's considerably more complicated than this, which is why I am not opening this can of worms. Whatever is good, God is first cause of it.

... In other words, there would be an evil in God which the creation would help remedy; and therefore, the creation would spring from something evil rather than from something good.

And why would you suggest this is not the reality, especially when bible claims God created humans to worship him? And most other major religions also suggest a similar reason for creation....

Because then the chain of teleological causation does not terminate.

If God is not perfectly happy, then He must ipso facto be striving for an end. In physical causation, the cause is prior in time to the effect; in teleological causation, it is the reverse: the effect, action, is prior to the cause, anticipated satisfaction of a desire in the future, when the action has borne fruit. Expected future utility triggers action in the present.

God is "Alpha" as in first in the order of physical causes, and "Omega" as in last in the order of teleological causes. But if God, too, is dissatisfied and seeking some good, then there is a state of affairs better than God. Moreover, God is not omnipotent, since He cannot remove his sorrow instantly and at one stroke. But then everything is forever seeking something, never arriving to full enjoyment of it. There is endless becoming. But then we can no longer say that man finds complete rest in God, because God, too, is discontented and therefore changing. As a result, the number of ends being sought is actually infinite, which is impossible.

God created humans so that they can seek and find happiness, not for any external to those humans ends, such as worship. A person's final cause, i.e., the reason why he exists, his life's purpose, is within him, and that is his own happiness.

Also going by your definition, goodness is something I can think of, so it has to be outside that set too, along with all other emotions and mental constructs.

Since goodness is beyond being, it cannot be known or understood; but it can be judged to be good.

Earth is a planet.
Big bang is not a universe.
And both earth and universe has "formed" from a different form of existence and will be destroyed, that is converted to a different form of existence eventually, that doesn't violate the law of conservation.

I already explained that "Earth" is just the name I gave to our universe, the actual world, not our planet.

Yes, matter can change from one form into another; e.g., a craftsman puts together many different types of materials to build a house. But matter-energy itself is imperishable. Regardless, I assume the universe to be everlasting to grant the atheists their best case.

---

There cannot exist an actually infinite number of real objects (as opposed to ideal objects like abstracta like numbers, sets, or possible worlds).

I don't buy that. But even if that were true, that's not the same as a infinite chain of causes.

I'm sad to hear you deny something so obvious. The quantity of real objects is measured by actual numbers. But "infinity" is a mathematical abstraction; it's not number.

It is the same as an infinite chain of causes, because each cause is a real object.

[Surgenator]

If it is not explicitly forbitten, then a possible situation will prevail eventually. That is what quantum mechanics tells us.

Logically prior to one of our propositions becoming true, both were false, and both were possible. Once one of them, namely (2), became true, the world it instantiated became imperishable and the other proposition, (1), became impossible.

No, both were not false. Because (1) was the exact opposite of (2), either you have nothing or you have something. There is no in between. So only one of them can be false at any given moment.

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.

Random or rather quasi-random events still require an environment in which to "choose." But in the interstices of our possible worlds, (1) and (2), (whatever that means) there was no such cradle to house random event-making.

Why do we need an environment? Why can't the choice be on the type of environment?

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.

Are you denying that there are such things as necessary propositions?

I'm sure there are some, but I don't think we agree on what these necessary propositions are.

[datc]

Imagine a vat full of marbles...an infinite number of them. All the marbles are white except one. One marble is red. The red marble represents ThereExist[nothing]. The white marbles represent different configurations of ThereExist[Something]. Is it possible that you could randomly draw the red marble? Sure. What is the probability of drawing the red marble? Its 0.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because while it is possible for ThereExist[nothing] to be the case, the probability it will be the case is 0.

Very good. Without realizing it, you have produced another argument for God's existence called "argument from particularity."

The argument is almost as you have put it. We ask: Why is the world this and not something else? Either it was designed for a purpose, such that the purpose (or end) constrained the universe (or means) to a single thing or at least a finite set; or its essence was randomly pulled somehow out of an infinity of possible worlds. But not the latter, because the probability of this world’s being chosen in such a way is exactly zero. It is impossible to consider for selection every member of an infinite set.

But purposive design entails choosing between possibilities and suggests an intelligence at work behind the scenes. Hence, another conclusion: God is smart.

However, the original argument is separate and distinct from this one. For here we compare possible forms or essences of the world: X, Y, Z, etc. In the OP, we compare existences. The question was: Why something, i.e., anything such as any of X, Y, or Z, rather than nothing?

[FatAndFaithless]

And 'lo the puddle in the pothole said, "Look how exactly this pothole fits to my shape, the only possible explanation is that it was designed to be this specific shape!"

[Neo-Scholastic]

The proper reply to "Why?" is "Why not?".

[Surgenator]

Imagine a vat full of marbles...an infinite number of them. All the marbles are white except one. One marble is red. The red marble represents ThereExist[nothing]. The white marbles represent different configurations of ThereExist[Something]. Is it possible that you could randomly draw the red marble? Sure. What is the probability of drawing the red marble? Its 0.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because while it is possible for ThereExist[nothing] to be the case, the probability it will be the case is 0.

Very good. Without realizing it, you have produced another argument for God's existence called "argument from particularity."

The argument is almost as you have put it. We ask: Why is the world this and not something else? Either it was designed for a purpose, such that the purpose (or end) constrained the universe (or means) to a single thing or at least a finite set; or its essence was randomly pulled somehow out of an infinity of possible worlds. But not the latter, because the probability of this world’s being chosen in such a way is exactly zero. It is impossible to consider for selection every member of an infinite set.

Lets try an anology to point out the flaw in your argument.

Why did Bob win the lottery instead of anyone else? Either the lottery board specifically picked Bob's ticket or Bob's ticket was pulled randomly out of millions of possible tickets. But it can't be the latter because the probability of Bob's ticket being chosen is effectively 0. Therefore, Bob's ticket was chosen by the lottery board.

Do you see the flawed reasoning in the analogy? Do you see how I used the same arguments in the analogy as you did in your "argument from particularity?" Do you realize the flawed reasoning in your "argument from particularity?"