Why is there something rather than nothing?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 problem I have with this question, is the absence of a proper definition of "nothing".
I have this empty box. There is "nothing" in it. But that's not really true. There's a bazillion atoms in there, called "air". Probably an uncountable number of microscopic living things as well.

So the best we can do in context of your question, I feel, is to simply remove everything that we recognise as "something". And whatever's left will then be nothing.

In this case, all that we recognise as "something" is the universe and everything it contains.
So let's hypothetically remove it all. What are we left with?

Well..... I don't know. We can call it "nothing". But what it really means is "the absence of the universe and all it contains".

So..... yeah.


I got nothing. ;-)

 

[Windwalker]

The problem I have with this question, is the absence of a proper definition of "nothing".
I have this empty box. There is "nothing" in it. But that's not really true. There's a bazillion atoms in there, called "air". Probably an uncountable number of microscopic living things as well.

So the best we can do in context of your question, I feel, is to simply remove everything that we recognise as "something". And whatever's left will then be nothing.

I don't see where I was asking a question. I was responding to his statement of "why is there something rather than nothing", and how that a naturalistic response that it "just is", which he offered, is no different than a theistic acceptance of the same paradox. It's saying the same thing. So I'm not sure what you were hearing in my response?

As far as "nothing" being impossible to define, this is very true. There is no "nothing". In religious terms the "nothingness" of God, or Emptiness, does not mean a blank or a vacuum. That is a common misperception. What "nothing" means is really "no thing", or no identifiable single object. God is not a "thing" in this sense, but rather is "all things", all objects" and none in particular as set apart from other objects. God is "All That Is", or "no thing", nothing. The nothingness of God, the Void, the Abyss, is the Wellspring of All That Is. It is nothing, and all things. It is Source, and Source is not other to what springs forth from within into being. Nothing ever "exits" God.

To try to deal with that rationally, you will inevitably slam into a paradox, which is what I said. The reason for this is simple. Language. Language is dualistic by design. It divides and separates one object from another, and the subject seeing from the object seen. To try to use a dualistic language, to try to think or cognize in these terms, this framework of reality, does not work speaking about the nonlinear, or the nondual. It's like trying to describe a round square, or a hot cold.

In this case, all that we recognise as "something" is the universe and everything it contains.
So let's hypothetically remove it all. What are we left with?

We are left with non-reality. A fiction. Something not real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see where I was asking a question.

Sorry, I hit the wrong reply button.
I wasn't actually responding to your post. I'll go edit my post to fix it.

My mistake.

 

[Jos]

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

Good point. There can only be something, for the ontology of nothing prevents it from existing without undercutting its own meaning.

But i am sure that true experts of nothing might not agree.

Ciao

- viole

Since something always existed maybe this eternal something was a God? Perhaps?

 

[Jos]

God always existed and always will exist , your soul is surrounded by darkness , don't believe me ? Close your eyes and look within .
To see the light you have to keep them closed , you see the same picture that looks dark . However , to see God , you have to see that it is not light or dark you are seeing , you are seeing God and God is very clear .

This is what God looks like ...

View attachment 26751

Understand , it is not dark or light in the picture and the picture is also 3d .

The picture seems dark to me.

 

[Jos]

Currently that includes such ideas as free will, consciousness, soul

Maybe I'm reading your post too literally but are you suggesting that these things are illusions and imaginary?

 

[Jos]

In fact, exactly the opposite is the case: 'the universe' consists of *all* space, matter, energy, etc at a given time. There is literally no 'outside' of it.

We can go further. Modern science considers ALL of space and time together as a single entity. Since all of time is part of this, any causality happens *within* spacetime.

So the universe is all that exists aka the cosmos?

 

[Jos]

In any case, the typical view is that space, time, matter, and energy are all co-existent.

Are all these things infinite or is that beyond the knowledge range of modern science?

 

[Jos]

But a straight forward answer is that God is mainly a psychological reality with significant neurobiological and cultural aspects.

What exactly does this statement mean?

 

[ChristineM]

Since something always existed maybe this eternal something was a God? Perhaps?

There is no evidence that something always existed

 

[Jos]

There is no evidence that something always existed

But how can nothing exist? If nothing can't exist then the only other option would be that something always existed...

 

[Polymath257]

So the universe is all that exists aka the cosmos?

Depending on the definitions of the author, yes.

 

[Polymath257]

But how can nothing exist? If nothing can't exist then the only other option would be that something always existed...

Only if you assume that time has always existed. Again, language gets in the way here.

1. It is possible time goes into the past infinitely far.
2. It is also possible that time only goes a finite duration into the past.

In both cases, the universe exists whenever there is time. In that sense, it has 'always existed'.

 

[Polymath257]

Since something always existed maybe this eternal something was a God? Perhaps?

Or just the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Are all these things infinite or is that beyond the knowledge range of modern science?

At this point, it looks like space is infinite in extent, but that isn't conclusively shown. It looks like time will be infinite into the future. Whether it is infinite into the past depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct. We don't know.

 

[Willamena]

Since something always existed maybe this eternal something was a God? Perhaps?

Why call it that, though?

 

[ChristineM]

But how can nothing exist? If nothing can't exist then the only other option would be that something always existed...

Who says nothing can't exist? You are applying a state that is relative to our universe to before our universe

Information and understanding of conditions before this universe existed is unknown.

It could be that something has always existed but you can't say that categorically.

 

[Jos]

Depending on the definitions of the author, yes.

OK, it is possible that this universe is all that ever was, is or ever will be?

Only if you assume that time has always existed. Again, language gets in the way here.

1. It is possible time goes into the past infinitely far.
2. It is also possible that time only goes a finite duration into the past.

In both cases, the universe exists whenever there is time. In that sense, it has 'always existed'.

Do you think there can ever be such a thing as nothing?

Or just the universe.

Do you believe in the eternal cyclic universe model?

 

[Jos]

Why call it that, though?

Idk, I guess it's just a label for something that's mysterious and that I don't know the answer to.

 

[Jos]

Who says nothing can't exist? You are applying a state that is relative to our universe to before our universe

Information and understanding of conditions before this universe existed is unknown.

It could be that something has always existed but you can't say that categorically.

It's just hard for me to think that there could be a 'nothing'. As was said earlier, the very ontology of nothing undercuts its own meaning, that I don't think it would even be possible for it to make sense to say that there ever was nothing. But who knows, maybe you're right and there actually was nothing at some point, as contradictory as that may sound.