Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    OK
    OK, great!

    Now, what about the infallibility of the Universal House of Justice? Do you hold a minimalist or maximalist view of its infallibility or do you deny that it is infallible?
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      OK, great!

      Now, what about the infallibility of the Universal House of Justice? Do you hold a minimalist or maximalist view of its infallibility or do you deny that it is infallible?
      Since I believe the decisions of the UHJ may change in the future I do not believe infallibility applies. Of course I may be wrong.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-30-2014, 07:42 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Since I believe the decisions of the UNJ may change in the future I do not believe infallibility applies. Of course I may be wrong.
        But is the Universal House of Judgement to be obeyed, even if one does not agree with their legislative enactment?
        "... It’s because the houses of justice make decisions in the realm of “what must be done” not “what the revealed Word means,” that one is never required to adjust one’s own understanding of Bahai beliefs to align with ideas or beliefs embodied in the UHJ’s decisions. Equally, “what is to be done” for Bahais is what the UHJ says: if the UHJ (or the local or national assembly) says something not in line with the Bahai scriptures, it must be put into effect. ..."

        http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2011...ion/#more-6667
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          But is the Universal House of Judgement to be obeyed, even if one does not agree with their legislative enactment?
          "... It’s because the houses of justice make decisions in the realm of “what must be done” not “what the revealed Word means,” that one is never required to adjust one’s own understanding of Bahai beliefs to align with ideas or beliefs embodied in the UHJ’s decisions. Equally, “what is to be done” for Bahais is what the UHJ says: if the UHJ (or the local or national assembly) says something not in line with the Bahai scriptures, it must be put into effect. ..."

          http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2011...ion/#more-6667
          Different question. I would consider this view reasonably accurate. UHJ does not represent Revelation, but UHJ exists within the context of Revelation. Yes the elected bodies of the Baha'i Faith must be obeyed.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
            Nope. Quite the opposite, in fact. Matter is a property of space-time.
            No. They are the properties of each other. Without matter, space and energy cannot be. And matter requires both, etc.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kelp(p) View Post
              Philosophically, I've been told that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a nonsense question because we cannot conceive of true nothingness and thus have no reference point from which to talk about it.
              I'd say that whoever told you that is wrong.


              Originally posted by Kelp(p) View Post
              All I'm left with as an alternative is the possibility of a God "eternal creating" the universe and providing a reason for it to exist rather than nothing at all. So, pretty much, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is my last recourse at having anything like a reason to believe in God. I know the idea of a "First Cause" just pushes the question of "why?" back one layer, but I'm trying to tackle one issue at a time here.
              There's no answer to this question, Kelp(p). Why is there something? How could we possibly answer that question? The existence of a deity doesn't help save to push things back a step to "why is there a god". In that sense, it's no different than the idea of a First Cause. Why is there something rather than nothing? There just is. As bad a taste as that answer may leave in the mouths of many (most?), it's the only real answer we've got.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                I'd say that whoever told you that is wrong.
                No. You are wrong. There was never nothing.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  No. You are wrong. There was never nothing.
                  Even if granted that there was never nothing, it's irrelevant to what I said. The fact that something does or doesn't exist doesn't prevent us from conceiving of it.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    Even if granted that there was never nothing, it's irrelevant to what I said. The fact that something does or doesn't exist doesn't prevent us from conceiving of it.
                    Just for fun. Just try to imagine no space, no time, no light, no dark, absolute nothingness. I can describe this. But I cannot imagine this. It is kind of like describing a static finite square circle on a flat surface. I just gave a description of an impossible finite 2D object.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      Just for fun. Just try to imagine no space, no time, no light, no dark, absolute nothingness. I can describe this. But I cannot imagine this. It is kind of like describing a static finite square circle on a flat surface. I just gave a description of an impossible finite 2D object.
                      What you gave a description of was nonsense. It is not the same thing.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        What you gave a description of was nonsense. It is not the same thing.
                        Of course the exmple is not the same thing. Since nothing is not a thing. Can you imagine: no space, no time, no light , no dark, no sound, no silence, not anything?
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          Of course the exmple is not the same thing. Since nothing is not a thing. Can you imagine: no space, no time, no light , no dark, no sound, no silence, not anything?
                          I can't tell if you're intentionally distorting the words or just can't keep it straight yourself. The example you gave was logically contradictory. It is in no way comparable to the conception of non-existence. Non-existence is not logically contradictory. I can pretty easily conceive of nothing rather than something, as I've said already.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • Nothing here strikes me as undeniable. Powerful intellects grapple with the OP's challenge daily, yet nothing has been posted that made me sit up and cry out, "Wow, that was insightful! Something to remember forever!"
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              I can't tell if you're intentionally distorting the words or just can't keep it straight yourself. The example you gave was logically contradictory. It is in no way comparable to the conception of non-existence. Non-existence is not logically contradictory. I can pretty easily conceive of nothing rather than something, as I've said already.
                              Great. Good for you. I cannot imagine nothingness.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                There's no answer to this question, Kelp(p). Why is there something? How could we possibly answer that question?
                                This is actually a big problem for you Carrikature. I don't think a universe that admits of a causal explanation for anything, except for the whole thing, is actually a coherent notion.

                                The existence of a deity doesn't help save to push things back a step to "why is there a god".
                                Are you aware of the arguments theists give for why you can't ask the same question about God, but you can ask that question of the universe?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X