Why is there Something Instead of God?

[phands]

That sphere is plasma and light cannot pass through.

Since you start with a complete falsehood, your "very beginning" is bunkum.....light can and does pass through plasma relatively easily, if the frequency of that light is high enough. Plasma and light interact, and physicists in fusion research use plasma as a way to manipulate light in Ignition attempts.

 

[abaddon]

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.

But can we conceive it, really? My dictionary says that to conceive is to "form a mental representation of; imagine".

So how do you mean "we can conceive of nothingness"? If you mean replace the vacuity of "nothingness" with other empty terms or phrases, like maybe "the utter absence of absolutely everything", then that's the problem with the concept. We're at the same level of abstraction, or maybe deeper, as "how many angels will fit on a pinhead?" Maybe one can "conceive" that, in a sense, cuz 'words mean things' ... But how is it not an empty subject to ponder? How are people not just pretending to understand something too abstruse to really understand, merely because there is no blatant contradiction within the phrase?

You don't have to list every last something in order to kinda-sorta "conceive" the notion of nothingness, because they're implicit in the definition "absence of all things". So nothing is always relative to something.

 

[George S]

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

Sure, there could have been nothing instead. Perhaps there even was. Since nothing is happening, time is meaningless. Instant after instant of nothing at all.
And it is impossible to know what happened first. There is no way to know why the universe turned on. All we can ever know is that it did.
If it was a denizen of a containing universe that turned our local universe on the question 'why' is then unanswered for the containing universe. The question 'why' assumes a cause in time. Event B was caused by some event A preceding it in time which caused B. 'Why' B is A caused it.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Improper question. It assumes there is a reason why.

 

[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

Sure, there could have been nothing instead. Perhaps there even was. Since nothing is happening, time is meaningless. Instant after instant of nothing at all.
And it is impossible to know what happened first. There is no way to know why the universe turned on. All we can ever know is that it did.
If it was a denizen of a containing universe that turned our local universe on the question 'why' is then unanswered for the containing universe. The question 'why' assumes a cause in time. Event B was caused by some event A preceding it in time which caused B. 'Why' B is A caused it.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Improper question. It assumes there is a reason why.

I agree.

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.

See? We seem to agree, definitely.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

But can we conceive it, really? My dictionary says that to conceive is to "form a mental representation of; imagine".

So how do you mean "we can conceive of nothingness"? If you mean replace the vacuity of "nothingness" with other empty terms or phrases, like maybe "the utter absence of absolutely everything", then that's the problem with the concept. We're at the same level of abstraction, or maybe deeper, as "how many angels will fit on a pinhead?" Maybe one can "conceive" that, in a sense, cuz 'words mean things' ... But how is it not an empty subject to ponder? How are people not just pretending to understand something too abstruse to really understand, merely because there is no blatant contradiction within the phrase?

You don't have to list every last something in order to kinda-sorta "conceive" the notion of nothingness, because they're implicit in the definition "absence of all things". So nothing is always relative to something.

By "conceive" I mean form a concept. I keep a distinction, unlike your dictionary, between "imagining", which requires something very nearly like visual images, what I would call concrete representations, and "conceiving", indeed through a mental representation, but one which can be entirely abstract, such as when pondering moral or metaphysical issues generally, and nothingness in particular. So, no possibility to imagine nothingness because we can't form in our mind any visual or concrete representation of nothingness, and for a good reason, but we can conceive of nothingness, and it's very easy in fact since all we need is to think in the abstract of the logical case of the absence of anything, and then reason on this basis as need be.

As to the vacuity of the subject, I broadly agree with you but you nonetheless have to make the distinction between those who broach on the subject to make metaphysical hay, which can indeed only be vacuous, and those who jump into the discussion to call the bluff of the first. You'll see the two kinds of people represented here.
EB

 

[Juma]

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

Sure, there could have been nothing instead. Perhaps there even was. Since nothing is happening, time is meaningless. Instant after instant of nothing at all.
And it is impossible to know what happened first. There is no way to know why the universe turned on. All we can ever know is that it did.
If it was a denizen of a containing universe that turned our local universe on the question 'why' is then unanswered for the containing universe. The question 'why' assumes a cause in time. Event B was caused by some event A preceding it in time which caused B. 'Why' B is A caused it.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Improper question. It assumes there is a reason why.

How could there have been nothing?
I dont think so. ”Nothing” is a thought up concept that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[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?"

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

No. But only because you seem unable to observe. Look around. Do you see a magic spaceman, cosmic magician, gods of any kind? On what observational basis do you conclude that there should be zero universe?

- - - Updated - - -

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

That's silly. What would nothing be? How would one identify it, observe it, describe it, etc.?

- - - Updated - - -

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

It would be a problem because it means zero universe. What is that?

 

[DBT]

If there was nothing instead of something, there would be nobody to know about it, or comment on the state, especially not argue about it, haha...

 

[PyramidHead]

If there was nothing instead of something, there would be nobody to know about it, or comment on the state, especially not argue about it, haha...

The fact that we are here talking about it is a consequence of there being something rather than nothing, but it does not make it any more likely that there should be something rather than nothing. It would simply be the case that our talking about it is itself an unlikely event still in need of an explanation, despite it having happened.

ETA: However, I don't actually believe existence is unlikely, as there are an infinite number of ways for there to be something and just one way for there to be nothing.

 

[Lion IRC]

"...there are an infinite number of ways for there to be something and just one way for there to be nothing"

That's a pretty binary, B&W opinion.
Do you think it's in accord with quantum theory? A hard line dividing physical, detectable 'something' from that placeholder, fuzzy word 'nothing'?

 

[George S]

"...there are an infinite number of ways for there to be something and just one way for there to be nothing"

That's a pretty binary, B&W opinion.
Do you think it's in accord with quantum theory? A hard line dividing physical, detectable 'something' from that placeholder, fuzzy word 'nothing'?

The word nothing is, in English, a noun. It is easy to describe: Consider all the existing things, add to that all the existing ideas, all dimensions, and when you have the glimmering of an idea of being done, there are infinitely many more to consider. When you have wrapped your mind around all that, build infinite truths that have not been discovered yet, and more that have not been enacted because of low probability. Let us call that Omega, the class of all reality.
Now defining nothing is easy: ~Omega. It represents the idea of unreality. Ideas of unreality are fairy tales.

 

[Lion IRC]

Times are changing.
Science is discovering that the line between detectable something and invisible nothing is blurred.
An atom is no longer the smallest indivisible particle.

 

[Juma]

Times are changing.
Science is discovering that the line between detectable something and invisible nothing is blurred.
An atom is no longer the smallest indivisible particle.

Hm. Is this post from 1889? (Because that was when JJ Thomson discovered the electron and it was clear that the atom isnt the smallest indivisible particle)

 

[Lion IRC]

Thanks for clearing that up Juma.
*phew*
Imagine if a few ancient Athenians wandered in and missed the spoiler alert.

 

[Juma]

If there was nothing instead of something, there would be nobody to know about it, or comment on the state, especially not argue about it, haha...

The fact that we are here talking about it is a consequence of there being something rather than nothing, but it does not make it any more likely that there should be something rather than nothing. It would simply be the case that our talking about it is itself an unlikely event still in need of an explanation, despite it having happened.

ETA: However, I don't actually believe existence is unlikely, as there are an infinite number of ways for there to be something and just one way for there to be nothing.

Avtually: there are no way for there to be nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for clearing that up Juma.
*phew*
Imagine if a few ancient Athenians wandered in and missed the spoiler alert.

And you continue to write total gallimatias..

 

[phands]

Times are changing.
Science is discovering that the line between detectable something and invisible nothing is blurred.
An atom is no longer the smallest indivisible particle.

Hm. Is this post from 1889? (Because that was when JJ Thomson discovered the electron and it was clear that the atom isnt the smallest indivisible particle)

I love it...I don't see LIRC's posts unless someone replies to them, but once again, he seems to have forgotten the old adage: "It's better to remain silent and have others judge you a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".

I wonder if his stupid religion has heard of Protons and Neutrons, never mind Quarks....

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm pretty sure he has heard of protons and neutrons

Brint: Have you seen the way he combs his hair?
Meekus: Or like, doesn't, it's like, ex-squeeze me, but have you ever heard of styling gel?
Brint: I'm sure Hansel's heard of styling gel, he's a male model.
Meekus: Uh, earth to Brint, I was making a joke.
Brint: Uh, Earth to Meekus, duh okay I knew that!
Meekus: Uh, Earth to Brint, I'm not so sure you do because you were all like 'well I'm sure Hansel's heard of styling gel' like you DIDN'T know it was a joke! aha, haha
Brint: I knew it was a joke, Meekus, I just didn't get it right away!
Meekus: Earth to Brint...

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty sure he has heard of protons and neutrons

Brint: Have you seen the way he combs his hair?
Meekus: Or like, doesn't, it's like, ex-squeeze me, but have you ever heard of styling gel?
Brint: I'm sure Hansel's heard of styling gel, he's a male model.
Meekus: Uh, earth to Brint, I was making a joke.
Brint: Uh, Earth to Meekus, duh okay I knew that!
Meekus: Uh, Earth to Brint, I'm not so sure you do because you were all like 'well I'm sure Hansel's heard of styling gel' like you DIDN'T know it was a joke! aha, haha
Brint: I knew it was a joke, Meekus, I just didn't get it right away!
Meekus: Earth to Brint...

If we are supposed to work out whether your posts indicate that you are an idiot; Or that you merely have the world's worst sense of humour, then that I know you are not German is going to be a significant point in your disfavour.

 

[Learner]

Times are changing.
Science is discovering that the line between detectable something and invisible nothing is blurred.
An atom is no longer the smallest indivisible particle.

Snap!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Times are changing.
Science is discovering that the line between detectable something and invisible nothing is blurred.
An atom is no longer the smallest indivisible particle.

Snap!

Food stamps?