Why is there Something Instead of God?

[Lion IRC]

somewhere in amongst all of the possible worlds/universes/multiverses/megaverses there is one where God exists - where it's impossible for Him not to exist.

What kind of god would that be that would not exist everywhere?!

One universe with a god among infinitely many without one. A god of small things?!
EB

Dont quibble about the nature of 'something' when the Op says that's all there is.

 

[abaddon]

Dont quibble about the nature of 'something' when the Op says that's all there is.

What's nothing and where is it?

Maybe it too, like God, is in some other possible universe?

 

[Learner]

Can we clarify then ,whether we can agree to accept Heaven as a different plane/universe or dimension ?

 

[DBT]

The Bible is not clear on that. There are verses that strongly suggest that Heaven was believed to be a physical place above the dome of the sky.

 

[Learner]

Ok then, shall we agree on physical place above the dome of the sky ?

 

[DBT]

Ok then, shall we agree on physical place above the dome of the sky ?

You would agree that this is a possibility?

 

[Learner]

Ok then, shall we agree on physical place above the dome of the sky ?

You would agree that this is a possibility?

It depends on you , because the OP question would then need to be altered. i.e. God exists in the physical place above the dome.

 

[DBT]

Ok then, shall we agree on physical place above the dome of the sky ?

You would agree that this is a possibility?

It depends on you , because the OP question would then need to be altered. i.e. God exists in the physical place above the dome.

I'm not sure of the point of this, or where this is going. It has nothing to do with me, but let's say that someone agrees that Heaven is a physical place situated above the Dome of the Sky.....what then? Where does this lead?

 

[Speakpigeon]

somewhere in amongst all of the possible worlds/universes/multiverses/megaverses there is one where God exists - where it's impossible for Him not to exist.

What kind of god would that be that would not exist everywhere?!

One universe with a god among infinitely many without one. A god of small things?!
EB

Dont quibble about the nature of 'something' when the Op says that's all there is.

The OP is crap but who needs the OP? If we're of a not too quibbling nature about definitions, any something sure is a god unto itself.

So, yeah, where there's something, there's a god.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Knowledge:

''Why not say that knowledge is true belief?

''The standard answer is that to identify knowledge with true belief would be implausible because a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. Beliefs that are lacking justification are false more often than not. However, on occasion, such beliefs happen to be true.

The analysis of knowledge may be approached by asking the following question: What turns a true belief into knowledge? An uncontroversial answer to this question would be: the sort of thing that effectively prevents a belief from being true as a result of epistemic luck. Controversy begins as soon as this formula is turned into a substantive proposal. According to evidentialism, which endorses the JTB+ conception of knowledge, the combination of two things accomplishes this goal: evidentialist justification plus degettierization (a condition that prevents a true and justified belief from being "gettiered"). However, according to an alternative approach that has in the last three decades become increasingly popular, what stands in the way of epistemic luck, what turns a true belief into knowledge is the reliability of the cognitive process that produced the belief. Consider how we acquire knowledge of our physical environment: we do so through sense experience. Sense experiential processes are, at least under normal conditions, highly reliable. There is nothing accidental about the truth of the beliefs these processes produce. Thus beliefs produced by sense experience, if true, should qualify as instances of knowledge. An analogous point could be made for other reliable cognitive processes, such as introspection, memory, and rational intuition. We might, therefore, say that what turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes.''

Crap.
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ok then, shall we agree on physical place above the dome of the sky ?

You would agree that this is a possibility?

It depends on you , because the OP question would then need to be altered. i.e. God exists in the physical place above the dome.

That does not work because we cannot observe a physical god. All things about this alleged god are non-physical, i.e. we cannot touch it, smell it, hear it, see it, it's impossible to have any contact wit it outside of our thoughts, unless we believe in anecdotes about ghosts and ghost stories.

Now I will accept that our thoughts are something physical, but the physicality of those thoughts only exist within our brains, not beyond.

So a god becomes a thought only, nothing more, not as real as a tree, a gust of wind or a sunset. This god thing is just in a given brain a real thought, not a real thing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Those who think gods are real might ask, "Where did the Universe come from?" Or they might ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" So I thought to ask, rather rhetorically, the obvious question, "Why is there something instead of god?"

For me the answer is simple. First of all, things like gods and ghosts aren't real. Secondly, somethingness is obviously the default setting of the universe. So the universe is here and gods are not. "Nothingness" or nothing is just semantics, a word like ghost, not something real.

So I'm quite content to observe the universe, know it's real, and know that it doesn't need an invisible cosmic magician to poof it into being.

Thank you for this powerful argument...

Thank you for this powerful argument that definitely proves gods don't exist. That kind of logic should shut the mouth of all these idiots who believe in God. It's reassuring to have such fine example of rhetoric on our side. Just a few lines but they put a definitive end to literally thousands of years of educated debate. That has to be an impressive achievement. I wish Aristotle, Descartes and Einstein were still around just so their great worried minds experience the relief we all feel now.

You should start to apply your powerful logic to all remaining conundrums humanity doesn't know how to solve. You know, just a few lines and poof, it's gone!

I look forward to see how you keep enlightening our days and nights in these dark, Trumpian times. I hope for a debate between you two on Fox and see how you shut his big mouth for good.
EB

So what is your answer to, "Why is there something instead of a god?"

 

[DBT]

Knowledge:

''Why not say that knowledge is true belief?

''The standard answer is that to identify knowledge with true belief would be implausible because a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. Beliefs that are lacking justification are false more often than not. However, on occasion, such beliefs happen to be true.

The analysis of knowledge may be approached by asking the following question: What turns a true belief into knowledge? An uncontroversial answer to this question would be: the sort of thing that effectively prevents a belief from being true as a result of epistemic luck. Controversy begins as soon as this formula is turned into a substantive proposal. According to evidentialism, which endorses the JTB+ conception of knowledge, the combination of two things accomplishes this goal: evidentialist justification plus degettierization (a condition that prevents a true and justified belief from being "gettiered"). However, according to an alternative approach that has in the last three decades become increasingly popular, what stands in the way of epistemic luck, what turns a true belief into knowledge is the reliability of the cognitive process that produced the belief. Consider how we acquire knowledge of our physical environment: we do so through sense experience. Sense experiential processes are, at least under normal conditions, highly reliable. There is nothing accidental about the truth of the beliefs these processes produce. Thus beliefs produced by sense experience, if true, should qualify as instances of knowledge. An analogous point could be made for other reliable cognitive processes, such as introspection, memory, and rational intuition. We might, therefore, say that what turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes.''

Crap.
EB

No.

 

[Jobar]

Those who have decided gods exist have already opted out of logic, reason and evidence, so don't ask that question because their answer is goddidit.

Not necessarily, no. You can believe in God and accept you don't know that it exists, which would be a perfectly logical position to have.

There's indeed a long tradition of believers doubting God and struggling with their doubts and being rather vocal about it.

Obviously, many believers want to claim God exists, but they may do this even while admitting to themselves at least that they don't really know God exists.

All true, and I've met (online, anyway) believers who are agnostic, and admit they have no proof the god of their belief exists.

Trouble with that, seems to me, is that you then cannot claim your god is worthy of worship. You don't know if it's benevolent, or malevolent.

 

[George S]

Shall we begin at the beginning?
Where is it? We can see the past and only see the past. In fact, if you look far enough you see in the microwave band a sphere. We can probe beyond that sphere but not with light. That sphere is plasma and light cannot pass through. We have two mathematical descriptions that can explain how that sphere came to be so smooth with variations only as big as 1/10000. The "Big Bang with Inflation" model, generally accepted today, breaks down when the sphere represents time zero because dividing a non-zero by zero is meaningless so we can't go back to zero, only close. The other description, QM has the uncertainty principle. If this is extended back to time zero the universe would have been small enough so it cannot be at one location. The shrinking cannot go all the way to a point but to a very tiny sphere. All the energy of the universe. We are inside that sphere. Time zero is every direction you look at a distance of about 13.8 billion light years.
Now, of course, the question becomes: Whence that behavior? Sure, I get it, time began with time zero and had no 'before.' However, that tiny, tiny (no, smaller than that) universe (our very own) was 'on' not 'off.' If reality, to include not only our universe but any real others, too, ever were in a state of 'nothing' -- no space to 'do' anything, no time to 'do' it in. No cause so no effect, no 'do,' then apparently that state was unstable. The clock started running and demonstrated this by 'doing' reality. Not due to what we know as natural law. Reality == change over time. Those changes we describe from 10^-34 seconds on using mathematics. Before that? Our mathematics cannot go.
Imagine time running but no other reality. For an infinite time or zero time nothing changed, nothing real. Then space to do things and photons which had a frequency. Is this a universal law? The first natural law? That nothing must become something?
By the way, we could be in a simulation of a reality. There is this universe named Heaven and Yahweh and his buddy Satan created our universe as a computer game. It could be that our reality is what it is like to be an NPC.
Now I ask, just like a 2-year-old: Whence Reality including any god or gods or parallel universes or whatever?
The answer has to be: Because there cannot be nothing. Nothing comes from nothing yet I exist, therefore there cannot have been the state of nothing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thank you for this powerful argument...

Thank you for this powerful argument that definitely proves gods don't exist. That kind of logic should shut the mouth of all these idiots who believe in God. It's reassuring to have such fine example of rhetoric on our side. Just a few lines but they put a definitive end to literally thousands of years of educated debate. That has to be an impressive achievement. I wish Aristotle, Descartes and Einstein were still around just so their great worried minds experience the relief we all feel now.

You should start to apply your powerful logic to all remaining conundrums humanity doesn't know how to solve. You know, just a few lines and poof, it's gone!

I look forward to see how you keep enlightening our days and nights in these dark, Trumpian times. I hope for a debate between you two on Fox and see how you shut his big mouth for good.
EB

So what is your answer to, "Why is there something instead of a god?"

Those who think gods are real might ask, "Where did the Universe come from?" Or they might ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" So I thought to ask, rather rhetorically, the obvious question, "Why is there something instead of god?"

That's a loaded question. It assumes there's no god when in fact you haven't a clue as to whether there's a god or not.

The only acceptable question would be: If there's no god, why is there something instead of nothing?

And there we're all stuck, you included, because we haven't a clue why there's something instead of nothing.

Still, I would reply by another question: Why should there be a reason at all for there being something?

Me, I don't see why so I don't see the need to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. So no reason is definitely good enough.

Is that good enough an answer for you?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Those who have decided gods exist have already opted out of logic, reason and evidence, so don't ask that question because their answer is goddidit.

Not necessarily, no. You can believe in God and accept you don't know that it exists, which would be a perfectly logical position to have.

There's indeed a long tradition of believers doubting God and struggling with their doubts and being rather vocal about it.

Obviously, many believers want to claim God exists, but they may do this even while admitting to themselves at least that they don't really know God exists.

All true, and I've met (online, anyway) believers who are agnostic, and admit they have no proof the god of their belief exists.

Trouble with that, seems to me, is that you then cannot claim your god is worthy of worship. You don't know if it's benevolent, or malevolent.

Doesn't follow.

You worship whatever you feel like worshipping. A stone on the pavement. A bird in the sky. An invisible god. If you believe it exists, why not? Worshipping also may be believed as effective to placate or appease a malevolent god, at least as long as nothing really bad happens to you. People believe and are free to believe whatever.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Because there cannot be nothing. Nothing comes from nothing yet I exist, therefore there cannot have been the state of nothing.

Sure, there is something so there cannot be nothing but that's not the question. Why is there something rather than nothing? Sure we know there's something but we don't actually know that there couldn't have been nothing instead.
EB

 

[abaddon]

People focus on the "why?" but go on saying "nothing" as if it's something. But why not doubt the concept itself?

"Nothing" only makes sense in the context of something. We say "nothing in the cup" when we mean there's no coffee or tea in the cup. "No coffee" becomes "no thing" in order to generalize. So "no thing" is just replacing the noun with a more generalized absence of all things. And that's always wrong because there is always a "thing" in the cup even if it's not what a person expected to be there.

Then somebody wanted to generalize an already flawed concept, from the absence of things (coffee, tea, water) inside of a thing (the cup), to an absolute absence of all things universally. Add a "-ness" to the end of "nothing" if wanted, to emphasize that an inconceivable degree of abstraction is being toyed with. The proposed "absolutely nothing" is still relative to something no matter the pretense that this level of abstraction names anything. It's still a matter of "no this and no that"... no space, no time, no vacuum, no energy, and on and on ad infinitum.

 

[Speakpigeon]

People focus on the "why?" but go on saying "nothing" as if it's something. But why not doubt the concept itself?

"Nothing" only makes sense in the context of something. We say "nothing in the cup" when we mean there's no coffee or tea in the cup. "No coffee" becomes "no thing" in order to generalize. So "no thing" is just replacing the noun with a more generalized absence of all things. And that's always wrong because there is always a "thing" in the cup even if it's not what a person expected to be there.

Then somebody wanted to generalize an already flawed concept, from the absence of things (coffee, tea, water) inside of a thing (the cup), to an absolute absence of all things universally. Add a "-ness" to the end of "nothing" if wanted, to emphasize that an inconceivable degree of abstraction is being toyed with. The proposed "absolutely nothing" is still relative to something no matter the pretense that this level of abstraction names anything. It's still a matter of "no this and no that"... no space, no time, no vacuum, no energy, and on and on ad infinitum.

I broadly agree on the analysis although I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with the notion of "nothing" applied at a situation where there's just no coffee inside the cup. We all understand. The wrongness only comes from using "nothing" as if it somehow meant or could mean "something". A lot of people unfortunately do that.

As to nothingness, why would this notion be a problem at all? You don't actually have to list all the things that wouldn't be there. The only difficulty we have, and it's a big one, it's that although we can conceive of nothingness, we can't imagine it because our imagination indeed always come with something, space, time, and perhaps an inevitable observer, ourselves. So, people with a weak capacity for conceiving have to compensate with their imagination and that's where they will get the wrong notion of nothingness.
EB