Why is there something rather than nothing?

[beenherebeforeagain]

Personally, I am skeptical of the ability of humans in general or particular to know whether or not there ever was or could be nothing...nor to know WHY there is something...

I'm satisfied with "We don't know." Because I doubt that we CAN know.

But I also think that we should try as best we can to figure out whether or not there could be nothing, and try to answer WHY there is [apparently] something rather than nothing...and why this set of something, rather than some other. Just because we may not be able to reach or comprehend answers to such questions, it is, in my opinion, no reason we should not be trying to find out.

 

[blü 2]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

I'd say an infinite regression rather than a paradox, but I agree with your main point.

As far as I can tell, mass-energy exists, so everything else exists as forms or properties of mass-energy.

But how it came about? I have no idea. It's an axiom of existence, not a theorem.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

We know of no reason does not mean there is no reason.

Think of it this way: If there is a reason for why there is something rather than nothing, then that reason is a something, and thus in attempting to find a reason for why there is something rather than nothing, we are driven back to our original question of why there is something rather than nothing. Thus, our reason does not answer the question, and therefore, cannot actually be a reason.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I'd say an infinite regression rather than a paradox, but I agree with your main point.

As far as I can tell, mass-energy exists, so everything else exists as forms or properties of mass-energy.

But how it came about? I have no idea.

An infinite regression still results in a paradox if we demand that the question has an answer, since the infinite regression does not answer where the infinite regression came from. But my point is that perhaps the question does not need, or even CANNOT have an answer

 

[osgart]

There is something because something is something. There is no nothing. Nothing is nothing.

What if that something called life doesnt ever turn into nothing? That's one long ride through the universe.

 

[ChristineM]

Think of it this way: If there is a reason for why there is something rather than nothing, then that reason is a something, and thus in attempting to find a reason for why there is something rather than nothing, we are driven back to our original question of why there is something rather than nothing. Thus, our reason does not answer the question, and therefore, cannot actually be a reason.

Yet... I believe i made it clear that my belief is that will not always be the case.

For several years i have been a keen observer of cosmological progress, knowledge of the universe has extended back from 10e-32 of a second after the bb to 10e-43 of a second. Only a small step but 2 whole epochs. I am confident research will fight its way closer to the bb and new knowledge will be acquired. Eventually allowing the question to be answered. It is very doubtful it will be in my lifetime but hopefully it will be within the lifetime of the human race.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

Can you provide an example of nothing? Do we have reason to believe that it's even possible for nothing to exist? Maybe there is something because it's not possible for there to be nothing.

 

[Quintessence]

Such a weird question. For a very long time, my response to it has been "humans cannot comprehend true nothingness; this is not a valid question and is entirely outside the scope of our abilities."

 

[Salvador]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

We don't know if we are in base reality, we can't see past the point of the Big Bang where our possible simulated reality begins.

 

[Fool]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

and the same questions will be raised after this civilization collapses and the next one arises. the fall and rise of mankind, don't you know? it's basically relative to space and time.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yet... I believe i made it clear that my belief is that will not always be the case.

For several years i have been a keen observer of cosmological progress, knowledge of the universe has extended back from 10e-32 of a second after the bb to 10e-43 of a second. Only a small step but 2 whole epochs. I am confident research will fight its way closer to the bb and new knowledge will be acquired. Eventually allowing the question to be answered. It is very doubtful it will be in my lifetime but hopefully it will be within the lifetime of the human race.

Once the "reason" of why there is something rather than nothing is obtained, this will only raise the question of the origin of whatever that reason or cause is, and thus the question will remain unanswered.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't know but it probably came down to a vote.

 

[Glaurung]

As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists.

If you can merely assert that the universe just is with no justification, why is it any less valid when I say the same about God?

For me God is the timeless and inexplicable ever generating cause of the universe. (Thus what caused the cause of all causes is an incoherent question). And I assert God as a logical necessity because I don't accept the non-contingency of material reality.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If you can merely assert that the universe just is with no justification, why is it any less valid when I say the same about God?

For me God is the timeless and inexplicable ever generating cause of the universe. (Thus what caused the cause of all causes is an incoherent question). And I assert God as a logical necessity because I don't accept the non-contingency of material reality.

It's not less valid. You are entitled to your belief. I am simply pointing out that positing a "God" to solve the problem of why there is something rather than nothing does not actually solve the problem. It simply raises the same question. More questions in fact, since a cosmic superman would presumably be more complicated and thus more deserving of an explanation than the universe it created.

 

[Glaurung]

It's not less valid. You are entitled to your belief. I am simply pointing out that positing a "God" to solve the problem of why there is something rather than nothing does not actually solve the problem.

I disagree. I cannot explain God but it is a different (and in my view a more coherent) claim than an infinite regress of material causes. My claim is that something outside the universe (which I call God) is generating all causal reality. God is by definition uncaused.

More questions in fact, since a cosmic superman would presumably be more complicated and thus more deserving of an explanation than the universe it created.

It is rhetoric like 'cosmic superman' which makes me question if you're arguing in good faith. Classical theism isn't the assertion of a cosmic superman. It is the claim that there exists an all-pervading reality; a conscious source of all being and existence which is timeless, transcendent and completely devoid of all parts and material components. Cosmic superman, man in the sky, ect... These are dismissive strawmans, not good faith arguments.

 

[osgart]

If the universe is non contingent then there is something infinite and eternal about its cause and effect.

If the universe is contingent upon else reality then it was set in motion to stand on its own by that other reality.

Since the universe is expanding from the big bang until now, and indefinitely into the future, then something outside of the universe must exist to give space room to grow itself.

Without space there is no matter, because there is no room for matter to exist.

Without space you either have a state of nothingness or an outside reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. I cannot explain God but it is a different (and in my view a more coherent) claim than an infinite regress of material causes. My claim is that something outside the universe (which I call God) is generating all causal reality. God is by definition uncaused.

Would you still call it "God" if it didn't align with the god of your religion?

It is rhetoric like 'cosmic superman' which makes me question if you're arguing in good faith. Classical theism isn't the assertion of a cosmic superman. It is the claim that there exists an all-pervading reality; a conscious source of all being and existence which is timeless, transcendent and completely devoid of all parts and material components. Cosmic superman, man in the sky, ect... These are dismissive strawmans, not good faith arguments.

No, I think "cosmic superman" is a perfectly valid description of what the typical person in the pews of a typical church believes in. If anything, it's the theologians asserting that their religion's god is an "all-pervading reality" or other nebulous nonsense who are misrepresenting things.

 

[Etritonakin]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

The best answer I have heard from science is "It simply was"

The best answer from God I have heard is "I AM THAT AM"


There was never nothing.

The only question is how what was became what is....

A most simple yet dynamic state able to become all else -including self-awareness, creativity, etc...

Revelation 1:8,11
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty…

Revelation 21:6
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Isaiah 41:4
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

 

[Firemorphic]

Not addressed to me but:

Would you still call it "God" if it didn't align with the god of your religion?

Yes, if it's not a anthropomorphic sky fairy.

No, I think "cosmic superman" is a perfectly valid description of what the typical person in the pews of a typical church believes in.

Describe a 'typical church'.
As far as Christianity goes, there are diverse philosophical and ideological positions within that religion. Broad strokes aren't going to achieve anything.

If anything, it's the theologians asserting that their religion's god is an "all-pervading reality" or other nebulous nonsense who are misrepresenting things.

You're misrepresenting the history, theology and teachings of many religions here. Quite a large majority of religions (even including many people of a so-called "agnostic" affiliation) including my own religion, believe in The all-pervading Reality. It's is not some later tacked on idea but for those who don't realize this, it takes re-evaluating their understanding of texts and words.

There are exceptions, sure. Some Christians take their theology too word-for-word literal, others way too symbolic (there's a balance).
It's hard to really know where your analogy fits in at all, even polytheists these days have a way more sophisticated view of their well-loved deities than to simply state "my deity lives in the clouds".

 

[blü 2]

Yes, if it's not a anthropomorphic sky fairy.

So are we using only apophatic definitions of God here? Or do we have a positive definition of God?