"Everything has a cause and an explanation" discussion.

[GrandizerII]

No by default. Show me otherwise

I would not go as far as that, but until a reason is given to think that everything does have a cause, and everything does have an explanation, there is no reason to believe that everything has a cause, and everything has an explanation. With an absence of evidence, the most sensible position is to withhold judgement, and neither affirm that they are true, nor that they are false. And as others have observed, the questions themselves are less than perfectly clear, so it is entirely possible that we could be led in different directions with different interpretations.

I rather doubt we are going to see any proof of either proposition appearing in this thread any time soon.

I think we can. I provided logical proof that not everything has a cause or a beginning in another thread. What's nice about it is it's pretty intuitive.

Pretty much goes like this:

Out of nothing, nothing arises. But we know that nothingness does not exist as we have this reality existing. This means all things that exist either arose from something or have always been. Allowing only the possibility that all things come from something fails to acknowledge that at some point "back" in "time" (whatever "time" is), there must have been some eternal stuff leading to this reality. So we should accept that there are stuff that have always been (i.e. without any causes or beginnings).

Now what this thing may be could be anything. And that's where I believe we should withhold judgement about what this whole thing is until sufficient relevant information is revealed.

[Whateverist]

I have two related questions:
1. Does everything have an explanation?
2. Does everything have a cause?

Yes and in both cases and usually quite a few. However many explanations are erroneous or irrelevant, but that doesn't stop us from trying.

[Alex K]

I think we can. I provided logical proof that not everything has a cause or a beginning in another thread. What's nice about it is it's pretty intuitive.

Pretty much goes like this:

Out of nothing, nothing arises.

May I stop you here - when you say arise, do you mean that in a temporal sense? And if so, what precisely counts as something arising?

[Pizza]

What counts as "nothing?"

[GrandizerII]

I think we can. I provided logical proof that not everything has a cause or a beginning in another thread. What's nice about it is it's pretty intuitive.

Pretty much goes like this:

Out of nothing, nothing arises.

May I stop you here - when you say arise, do you mean that in a temporal sense? And if so, what precisely counts as something arising?

Could be temporal, could be some other sort of sense (atemporal or whatever), whatever it may be. There is no specific sense attached to the term. If you want a better term than "arise", I can't think of one atm.

Could you explain why this is something I need to specify? What logical problems would arise from me not specifying?

---

What counts as "nothing?"

By that, I mean literal philosophical nothing. Not Krauss's nothing. To me, the latter is still something.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would not go as far as that, but until a reason is given to think that everything does have a cause, and everything does have an explanation, there is no reason to believe that everything has a cause, and everything has an explanation. With an absence of evidence, the most sensible position is to withhold judgement, and neither affirm that they are true, nor that they are false. And as others have observed, the questions themselves are less than perfectly clear, so it is entirely possible that we could be led in different directions with different interpretations.

I rather doubt we are going to see any proof of either proposition appearing in this thread any time soon.

I think we can. I provided logical proof that not everything has a cause or a beginning in another thread. What's nice about it is it's pretty intuitive.

Pretty much goes like this:

Out of nothing, nothing arises. But we know that nothingness does not exist as we have this reality existing. This means all things that exist either arose from something or have always been. Allowing only the possibility that all things come from something fails to acknowledge that at some point "back" in "time" (whatever "time" is), there must have been some eternal stuff leading to this reality. So we should accept that there are stuff that have always been (i.e. without any causes or beginnings).

Now what this thing may be could be anything. And that's where I believe we should withhold judgement about what this whole thing is until sufficient relevant information is revealed.

You're very close. Temporal priority is not relevant. Nearly all informed defenders of the argument know that it does not matter whether the physical universe had a start or extends infinitely back in time. The issue has to due with contingent beings versus what is non-contingent and fundamental.

The existence of a vase (something that came into being) depends on a material (glass) and the pattern it follows (an open mouthed cavity). This can be further broken down into more fundamental things. The glass of which the vase is made depends on the existence of a more fundamental material (silica, lead oxide, etc.) arranged in a pattern (its molecular structure). The process extends down to a point at which no further dependencies can be had: primal Matter and the ideal form of unity.

Both primal matter and formal unity are non-contingent and do not depend on anything else for their being. Primal matter is that which has no other property than existence itself. Unity is the form by which particulars are distinguished from universals. Neither exists apart from each other since no form is without substance and no substance is without form, even though they can be distinguished by the intellect.

So where does that leave you. The most fundamental aspect of reality is a universal self-sustaining being. It is the one thing to which all particular things owe their existence. You can call that what you want, but to my ears it sounds very much like the God of classical theism.

[Pizza]

What counts as "nothing?"

By that, I mean literal philosophical nothing. Not Krauss's nothing. To me, the latter is still something.

Then the problem is you're giving powers to nothing. You're saying nothing has the ability to stop something from "arising."

[GrandizerII]

By that, I mean literal philosophical nothing. Not Krauss's nothing. To me, the latter is still something.

Then the problem is you're giving powers to nothing. You're saying nothing has the ability to stop something from "arising."

I heard that argument before on some other site (I think it was Sean Carroll's), but the problem I see with this is that it seems to be wordplay. I am saying that nothing has no ability whatsoever. So it will neither have the ability to get stuff to "arise" from it nor the ability to stop something from "arising". If nothingness existed (which it doesn't), then nothing would have "existed". So the reason why nothing arises from this nothingness is NOT because of some ability that nothingness may have (it is NOthing after all), but rather because there is no stuff or property in this nothingness to allow for something to occur.

---

I think we can. I provided logical proof that not everything has a cause or a beginning in another thread. What's nice about it is it's pretty intuitive.

Pretty much goes like this:

Out of nothing, nothing arises. But we know that nothingness does not exist as we have this reality existing. This means all things that exist either arose from something or have always been. Allowing only the possibility that all things come from something fails to acknowledge that at some point "back" in "time" (whatever "time" is), there must have been some eternal stuff leading to this reality. So we should accept that there are stuff that have always been (i.e. without any causes or beginnings).

Now what this thing may be could be anything. And that's where I believe we should withhold judgement about what this whole thing is until sufficient relevant information is revealed.

You're very close. Temporal priority is not relevant. Nearly all informed defenders of the argument know that it does not matter whether the physical universe had a start or extends infinitely back in time. The issue has to due with contingent beings versus what is non-contingent and fundamental.

The existence of a vase (something that came into being) depends on a material (glass) and the pattern it follows (an open mouthed cavity). This can be further broken down into more fundamental things. The glass of which the vase is made depends on the existence of a more fundamental material (silica, lead oxide, etc.) arranged in a pattern (its molecular structure). The process extends down to a point at which no further dependencies can be had: primal Matter and the ideal form of unity.

Both primal matter and formal unity are non-contingent and do not depend on anything else for their being. Primal matter is that which has no other property than existence itself. Unity is the form by which particulars are distinguished from universals. Neither exists apart from each other since no form is without substance and no substance is without form, even though they can be distinguished by the intellect.

So where does that leave you. The most fundamental aspect of reality is a universal self-sustaining being. It is the one thing to which all particular things owe their existence. You can call that what you want, but to my ears it sounds very much like the God of classical theism.

It doesn't have to be a "being". So it doesn't have to be a God in the traditional sense.

We don't know at this point what exactly is/are "behind" all this existence (whatever the hell it is/they are), and my argument was never intended to try to answer that bit.

[Pizza]

Then the problem is you're giving powers to nothing. You're saying nothing has the ability to stop something from "arising."

I heard that argument before on some other site (I think it was Sean Carroll's), but the problem I see with this is that it seems to be wordplay. I am saying that nothing has no ability whatsoever. So it will neither have the ability to get stuff to "arise" from it nor the ability to stop something from "arising". If nothingness existed (which it doesn't), then nothing would have "existed". So the reason why nothing arises from this nothingness is NOT because of some ability that nothingness may have (it is NOthing after all), but rather because there is no stuff or property in this nothingness to allow for something to occur.

There would be no property to stop properties from just happening. Nothing followed by something. Non-existing followed by existing. I hate to repeat myself but you are just repeating yourself. I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just showing you haven't actually proved anything.

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

I think we can. I provided logical proof that not everything has a cause or a beginning in another thread. What's nice about it is it's pretty intuitive.

Pretty much goes like this:

Out of nothing, nothing arises. But we know that nothingness does not exist as we have this reality existing. This means all things that exist either arose from something or have always been. Allowing only the possibility that all things come from something fails to acknowledge that at some point "back" in "time" (whatever "time" is), there must have been some eternal stuff leading to this reality. So we should accept that there are stuff that have always been (i.e. without any causes or beginnings).

Now what this thing may be could be anything. And that's where I believe we should withhold judgement about what this whole thing is until sufficient relevant information is revealed.

You're very close. Temporal priority is not relevant. Nearly all informed defenders of the argument know that it does not matter whether the physical universe had a start or extends infinitely back in time. The issue has to due with contingent beings versus what is non-contingent and fundamental.

The existence of a vase (something that came into being) depends on a material (glass) and the pattern it follows (an open mouthed cavity). This can be further broken down into more fundamental things. The glass of which the vase is made depends on the existence of a more fundamental material (silica, lead oxide, etc.) arranged in a pattern (its molecular structure). The process extends down to a point at which no further dependencies can be had: primal Matter and the ideal form of unity.

Both primal matter and formal unity are non-contingent and do not depend on anything else for their being. Primal matter is that which has no other property than existence itself. Unity is the form by which particulars are distinguished from universals. Neither exists apart from each other since no form is without substance and no substance is without form, even though they can be distinguished by the intellect.

So where does that leave you. The most fundamental aspect of reality is a universal self-sustaining being. It is the one thing to which all particular things owe their existence. You can call that what you want, but to my ears it sounds very much like the God of classical theism.

---