Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[FatAndFaithless]

Gooood luck Surg.

[datc]

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?"

Come on! I specifically say "infinity" of possible worlds, not millions of them; and "exactly" zero, not effectively zero.

[Chas]

"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.

You have yet to provide any compelling evidence for the existence of God. Your assertion is unsupported.

---

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

No, the proper reply is to provide reasoning and evidence.

[FatAndFaithless]

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?"

Come on! I specifically say "infinity" of possible worlds, not millions of them; and "exactly" zero, not effectively zero.

But even that 'inifnity' is an unsupported presupposition. You can't claim that there could've been an infinite number of possible universes if we only have one universe to possibly examine. We don't know what happened before the big bang or even if there was a 'before' the big bang. You don't get to say that our universe is so unlikely just because it's particular in some constants. It could be that our current universe was the only possibe result of a pre-existing conditions, and there weren't an infinite number of possibilities. Sorry, you don't get to claim knowledge of probability before the beginning of the universe because there's no possible way (right now at least) for anyone to make any affirmative statement about the pre-big bang conditions.

[Angrboda]

"Don't give up your day job."

This is pretty standard cosmological argument with some nonsense about goodness tacked on the end which is nothing but unsupported assertions.

And for what it's worth, in the Hindu pantheon, the Shakti or divine feminine is the active principle. Like much else here you've simply coughed up your pre-existing beliefs as self-evident assertions. They aren't.

[Chas]

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.

The failure of this argument is obvious. You are insisting that the current universe is somehow meant to be, but that is an unwarranted assumption.

We exist as a result of this universe's existence. If it weren't this universe, we wouldn't be. So what? What makes you believe that we are meant to be?

[Surgenator]

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?"

Come on! I specifically say "infinity" of possible worlds, not millions of them; and "exactly" zero, not effectively zero.

That flawed reasoning is not affected by the number of possibilities. A possibility must be choosen. Whatever the chosen possibility is, it will always have a lower probability than anything else being chosen (unless the possible choices is limited to 2 or less).

[datc]

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.

You have yet to provide any compelling evidence for the existence of God. Your assertion is unsupported.

I was answering a very specific objection. Aoi Magi wrote that the good was subjective, implying that goodness would have trouble managing the good it creates, because X may be good Smith but bad for Jones. I refused to enter into the discussion of what "good" is and suggested simply that whatever it is (and it's actually a lot of things), goodness is competent enough to administer the good to our satisfaction.

[Heywood]

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.

The problem with this argument is it assumes that only one configuration exist. Perhaps all configurations exist and since we are in this one, we observe this one. No choice was made, it was simply an evitable consequence of all configurations existing. Since I could use this same argument to "prove" a multiverse its not really a proof of God.

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?

In your OP you do not favor existence over non-existence but the counter argument I made shows there is good reason not to accept that premise.

[FifthElement]

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

None whatsoever ...

Here is nice lil' article for OP.

datc PLEASE red this:

About Infinite Regress

and then come back and have a serious discussion, thanks