Then again, sometimes the most obvious answer is the right answer. Do you feel like you don't exist? No? Then you probably do.Maybe existence does not exist.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Then again, sometimes the most obvious answer is the right answer. Do you feel like you don't exist? No? Then you probably do.Maybe existence does not exist.
From the link: So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
I think that means that in these theories "nothing" is not really "nothing".
That seems weird because then in a finite amount of time in the past there was something that existed without a cause. If that thing was infinite then you have the same infinity problem.
If that thing was a being then that really stretches the probability, why would a being or God just exist in complete nothingness and consciousness is complex. A first cause should be something simple like pure potentiality (which in a way is what particles are made of).
You are also assuming causality, the big bang created spacetime which has a direction of time, that doesn't exist everywhere.
You don't need to go back ad infinitum if time does not exist outside our universe. But there are infinities in numbers and larger infinities between each number, we can still get past them. There isn't one universal time, relativity demonstrated this, so that isn't a problem.
But the question is why is there something and not nothing, not the Kalam cosmological argument? If the Kalam doesn't support Zeus or Inana than it doesn't support Yahweh either. The question is why does anything exist?
Seven rambling and senseless paragraphs?The simple explanation is ...
A vacuum bubble can form spontaneously from nothing. It does not matter what is outside the bubble but the nothing inside the bubble. I think this point is well explained
The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"
Don't bash at nothing."why is there something rather than nothing?"
It can't exist in nothing. That would be a bubble of nothing occurring in nothing. That's logically incoherent. The same logical incoherency as supra-existence. Just dressed up as science. And in any case, it doesn't respond to the origin of the forces that would enable it to happen.A vacuum bubble can form spontaneously from nothing. It does not matter what is outside the bubble but the nothing inside the bubble. I think this point is well explained
Rejecting the question is not an answer. We would need to negate the question. And that we cannot do.The "most basic question" is a bad question. It's akin to asking, "What causes cause?
Does the canvas cause the painting on which it appears?
Existence simply is...without cause...and it's time, space, and causation that bring forth the appearance of form (things). Since existence is the substrate on which "cause" appears, it stands to reason that existence has no cause.
The bubble needs something outside for it to form and to form in.
How does a universe just come into existence from absolutely nothing inside a true vacuum bubble when the bubble is big enough?
I tend to see some things as fantasies in mathematics. The fantasy side of it can be seen when we stand back and look at the big picture of what is being said instead of just the mathematical symbols on paper.
It's semantic slight of hand. A vacuum in a vacuum is nothing pretending to be something.The bubble needs something outside for it to form and to form in.
How does a universe just come into existence from absolutely nothing inside a true vacuum bubble when the bubble is big enough?
I tend to see some things as fantasies in mathematics. The fantasy side of it can be seen when we stand back and look at the big picture of what is being said instead of just the mathematical symbols on paper.
since when you qualify in quanum vacuum bubbles?It can't exist in nothing. That would be a bubble of nothing occurring in nothing. That's logically incoherent. The same logical incoherency as supra-existence. Just dressed up as science. And in any case, it doesn't respond to the origin of the forces that would enable it to happen.
Theories abound. Still no answers, though.
Rejecting the question is not an answer. We would need to negate the question. And that we cannot do.
It's interesting to me that this is often considered one of those basic questions. I never ask it. I don't see the point in asking it. Lots of stuff is here, and I experience lots of stuff. To me, the natural and basic question to ask is "what is my relationship to all this stuff?" not "why is it here?" Who cares why it is here? It's here. I have a relationship with everything around me. What does that mean, and how do I navigate the reality of which I am a part?
Short answer: Because nothing is nothing.How do you approach this?
I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)
It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).
Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but
Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.
How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.
But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?
The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"
This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.
"We" as in you, me, and anyone else that feels obliged to heed the dictates of logic.I think you meant "I," unless you're speaking for that mouse in your pocket.
The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"
It's interesting to me that this is often considered one of those basic questions. I never ask it. I don't see the point in asking it.
Who cares why it is here? It's here. I have a relationship with everything around me. What does that mean, and how do I navigate the reality of which I am a part?
A problem with that would be that there could not be an infinite number of causes or we would not be at this particular cause yet. That tells us that there had to have been a first cause, something that existed without a cause.
The simple explanation is connected to humans having two centers of consciousness; the inner self and the ego.
"We" as in you, me, and anyone else that feels obliged to heed the dictates of logic.
I've heard tell that the most "basic question" that we can try to answer is "why is there something rather than nothing?" (Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone," but let's ignore that one for this discussion.)
It seems that many people cannot understand why there is a universe at all (I'm in that group -- I accept it, but don't understand it).
Everyone, as I understand it, agrees that "nothing comes from nothing." (I'm not sure, but I think that makes some kind of sense...but
Yet, here we are, and all we curious humans want to know why and how we got here.
How do you approach this? Most of humanity (on the numbers, I'd say "virtually all" of humanity) has decided that there must be something "outside," something "not this," that caused our existence.
But on what basis do you suppose that? Is it wrong to ask, if our universe, our existence is impossible, "what makes an outside cause possible?" Where did it come from, why does it exist, what kind of thing is it that existed and plotted creation when there was -- literally -- nothing but it?
The question I am trying to ask -- for anyone who would like to try actually "philosophising," is simply this: "why can't something exist without something to cause it to exist, and yet the cause can exist without a cause?"
This is an exercise in philosophy. Do your best.