• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Philoscybin

Philoscybin

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
399
Regarding the age old question: "why is there something rather than nothing?", what do others here think or believe?

I can only respond to this by asserting that the question is nonsensical and absurd as there is no "why" to the universe, it just is (existence exists- A is A). The contradiction lies in the word "why", which is a request for a cause. A cause is something that exists. Existence is the total of everything that exists. Asking for a cause of all that exists is a request for something (the cause) that exists, but which plays no part of the total or sum of everything that exists. Questions incorporating contradictions are invalid and can be rejected on that basis. The theist has got it wrong by thinking that the universe had to have a cause greater than the universe. A rational man doesn't seek that type of answer because he knows that existence exists and only existence exists. The universe exists, that's it.

One must also understand the distinction between a rationally valid answer and an answer that will satisfy the committed theist. The above is the former, not the latter. A strong theist is someone who, by accepting faith as a valid means of acquiring knowledge, has already committed themselves to rejecting rational arguments whose conclusions they find emotionally uncongenial. You will never be able to change the mind of such a person through rational argument because they've already rejected reason as the final authority of belief. That doesn't make them right, it just makes them not worth arguing with.

Sorry if I rambled on there.
 
I think, therefore I shit.

Belief is a dangerous thing. Sometimes it causes people to reject other beliefs, because only their own belief is right. When, in all probability, everyone's wrong about everything anyway, universally.

Not saying you are, just stating a point, but people are self centered when they wonder why they are here, when the real question, as you state, is why is the universe here?

I'd like to think that the universe is consciousness, and it created everything within it to stave off loneliness.

Why is man here? To kill each other in wars.

Not really making some grand overarching point here, just a few random thoughts to float.
 
I agree with the OP about what you said about the theist.

An uncaused self-cause my ass, Thomas Aquinas. End of ramble.
 
I was just pondering the same thing this morning and came to the conclusion... there is no why. There is only what. Why has no meaning outside of the human mind.
 
yeah.. a series of "why" questions will inevitably lead a person into a final contradictory question of "why".
 
Faith is not the preserve of theists, anyone who has any belief that is underdetermined by the supporting evidence (pretty much any belief other than cogito ergo sum) is exercising faith.
 
Yerg said:
Faith is not the preserve of theists, anyone who has any belief that is underdetermined by the supporting evidence (pretty much any belief other than cogito ergo sum) is exercising faith.
Click to expand...

Yup, science = faith - as you said Descartes said this along time ago.

There was a very good artical about the anthropic principle that I have since lost [EDIT and found!] that touched on the thread topic. As far as I remember the author (a quantum physicist by the way) [EDIT it was Bernard Carr, who is a professor of mathematics and astronamy but studied under Hawkins - why I got confused] put forward 4 [EDIT 5] explinations for why we exist, given that things are so fine tuned for our existence. I think I can only remember 3 of them
1: God created the universe so that we could live in it.
2: There are many multiple realities, we exist in the one which supports life because that is the only one we can percieve from
3: Untill sentient beings came along, there where only uncolapesed waveforms of probibility, in one of them we became obvservers and colapsed the waveform creating the universe
4: [EDIT] The universe is continously expanding and contracting, with a new singlarity at each point. Sometimes the cosmological constanst support life and sometimes they don't, so we percieve from one of the ones that does
5: [EDIT] The universe is infinite and there are diffrent pockets of it with diffrent physical laws, we happen to exist in one in which the laws support life because we must to percieve

Any way, it doesn't answer the question, as there is always another "why". I am inclined to believe that everything exists by definition in some way, so either 2 or 3.

Sorry if this is ill formed and not well reasoned. :|
 
Last edited:
Well I would only think it's rational to have faith in science. Any belief system founded upon divine powers or any esoteric or mystical force is a pure lapse of rational judgement and reason. Science is the only thing that attempts to explain things on a purely objective and rational level (ideally). Any error made in the name of science is no longer considered scientific. It is the possible errors that we may not know of as of yet within science that make science a faith, but it's a faith in progress- always searching and questioning and willing to accept its own mistakes. Therefore, it's all we have to truly rely upon. Mysticism carries no foundation to which is credible. It's based on emotive hearsay, holding belief systems that true knowledge of the universe is carried through some delirious subjective experience within the practice of the occult or taking of a psychoactive substance.
 
rpm said:
3: Untill sentient beings came along, there where only uncolapesed waveforms of probibility, in one of them we became obvservers and colapsed the waveform creating the universe:|
Click to expand...

Interesting. Could you explain more of this.
 
Philoscybin said:
Well I would only think it's rational to have faith in science. Any belief system founded upon divine powers or any esoteric or mystical force is a pure lapse of rational judgement and reason. Science is the only thing that attempts to explain things on a purely objective and rational level (ideally). Any error made in the name of science is no longer considered scientific. It is the possible errors that we may not know of as of yet within science that make science a faith, but it's a faith in progress- always searching and questioning and willing to accept its own mistakes. Therefore, it's all we have to truly rely upon. Mysticism carries no foundation to which is credible. It's based on emotive hearsay, holding belief systems that true knowledge of the universe is carried through some delirious subjective experience within the practice of the occult or taking of a psychoactive substance.
Click to expand...

Question: why does knowledge have to be objective and transferable to someone else.

1: Suppose there is a god
2: This god is omnipotent
3: Suppose he shows himself to you in such a way that you KNOW that he exists (he can do this by 2)
4: Suppose that the way he shows himself to you cannot be explained objectivly or transfered

Therefore you know there is god but you cannot use objective rational arguments to convince others

I'm not saying this is the case. But I don't think it's logicaly inconsitant.
 
Philoscybin said:
Interesting. Could you explain more of this.
Click to expand...

If only I had the article. But take the copenhagen interpretation. Waveform of probabilities exist until observed, at which they collapse into classical reality. Before there are observers there are only waveforms of possibilities, in effect every possibility is superimposed upon each other. In one of these possibilities observers develop who can colapse the waveform and the (observed) universe is created. I'm not a quantum physicist so I've probably done a bad job of explaining this. Perhaps someone else can help.

Also I may be able to find the article.
 
Last edited:
As to the original question, I don't agree that it's necessarily nonsensical or an absurd question. But I do think it's utterly unanswerable to us, and that any proposed answer (including 'It's an absurd question.') is necessarily speculative.

This is a good thing. The insolvable nature of existence itself is what drives, and is therefore best left to, the human imagination. If all of humanity ever got a definite answer as to why there's something rather than nothing, life would be like reading a mystery novel where you already know the final plot twists.

I should point out that even many creation myths that involve a prime mover or creator -- including the two at the beginning of the Book of Genesis -- give no explanation for WHY God created existence, just THAT he did. I point this out just to show that the question in the subject line is really independent of, and can be considered without getting into, the question of God's existence.

Philoscybin said:
Mysticism carries no foundation to which is credible.
Click to expand...

This really depends on what you trust as your base source(s) of knowledge. The goal of mysticism is to see for yourself what's going on behind the curtain of apparent reality, rather than to take someone else's word. As such, it's entirely subjective. But mysticism therefore requires that you ultimately trust your own subjective experience more than you don't. I know I do, because ultimately, it's all I've got; the entirety of existence as I know it occurs completely within my mind. When it comes to matters of ultimate reality, I'm going to wager that my own intuition and some of the extraordinary experience I've had actually point the way, and are not just delusions. If I ultimately lose this wager, so be it, but I'm sticking with it.

I can't imagine someone who has staunchly decided to only accept objectively measured data as a reliable source of knowledge having any interest in, or use for, mysticism. This is what kills me about books like the skeptic favorite Rational Mysticism by John Horgan.
 
Well I would only think it's rational to have faith in science. Any belief system founded upon divine powers or any esoteric or mystical force is a pure lapse of rational judgement and reason. Science is the only thing that attempts to explain things on a purely objective and rational level (ideally). Any error made in the name of science is no longer considered scientific. It is the possible errors that we may not know of as of yet within science that make science a faith, but it's a faith in progress- always searching and questioning and willing to accept its own mistakes. Therefore, it's all we have to truly rely upon. Mysticism carries no foundation to which is credible. It's based on emotive hearsay, holding belief systems that true knowledge of the universe is carried through some delirious subjective experience within the practice of the occult or taking of a psychoactive substance.
Click to expand...
Mysticism has experience as its evidence. The vast majority of us do not understand the science on which claims such as "dark matter exists" or "there are black holes" or are based. We accept them because of the authority of those who make the claims. Now, it seems to me that there are a great many people who accept claims like these uncritically-I know lots of laymen who talk about how neat string theory is. Yet, when it comes to religion, all these people suddenly become skeptics. There's clearly a double standard at work. A good mystic also always challenges his own beliefs through searching and questioning-mysticism is not dogmatic. As for the objectivity of science, I'd say that with underdetermination and the theory laden-ness of data that's a pretty hard argument to make.
 
So I found the article if anyone is interested. By Prof Bernard Carr who is a Mathmatician and Astronomer.

He also edited a book on the subject that you can get here with contributors such as Steven Hawkins and Max Telmark.
 
nothing is the absence of something. that's not something. that's not anything.
 
Can an absence not be an object? I mean, if it's not, then what makes a statement such as "there are no pink elephants" true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top