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

[37818]

Well natural law isn't really an existing thing is it? It merely defines certain attributes of the existing thing.

So do you think something which does not exist defines existing things?

[shunyadragon]

Natural Law > existence.

So Natural Law came before it existed.

No, Natural Law is the uncaused cause of the nature of existence from the Naturalist perspective. If existence is infinite, then Natural Law is infinite. Cause and effect would be mutual characteristics of the physical nature of all possible universes and multiverses. Of course, the Natural Laws we observe for our universe are not likely the ultimate Natural Law of all possible universes or multiverses. If you are a Theist like I am I define the ultimate Natural Law as the nature of God's Creation.

[37818]

No, Natural Law is the uncaused cause of the nature of existence from the Naturalist perspective. If existence is infinite, then Natural Law is infinite. Cause and effect would be mutual characteristics of the physical nature of all possible universes and multiverses. Of course, the Natural Laws we observe for our universe are not likely the ultimate Natural Law of all possible universes or multiverses. If you are a Theist like I am I define the ultimate Natural Law as the nature of God's Creation.

And uncaused cause requires an uncaused existence. So either the uncaused cause and the uncaused existence are one and the same uncaused. Or the uncaused existence precedes the uncaused cause [Which I do not beleive is the case].

[shunyadragon]

And uncaused cause requires an uncaused existence. So either the uncaused cause and the uncaused existence are one and the same uncaused. Or the uncaused existence precedes the uncaused cause [Which I do not beleive is the case].

Well . . . a bit confusing, but Natural Law can possibly be the uncaused cause of the nature of our physical existence, and our physical existence can possibly by infinite. Based on the objective evidence there is no other possible alternative, except to 'believe' there is another uncaused cause.

[37818]

Well . . . a bit confusing, but Natural Law can possibly be the uncaused cause of the nature of our physical existence, and our physical existence can possibly by infinite. Based on the objective evidence there is no other possible alternative, except to 'believe' there is another uncaused cause.

There is a difference between existence and a cause. Causes, caused and uncaused are contingent on existing. Existence caused is contingent on a cause, whether the cause is caused or uncaused. But an uncaused existence is not contingent on anything. An uncaused cause is contingent on an uncaused existence. Even though they are the one and the same uncaused entity. And uncaused cause has two different natures. Uncaused being eternal. And cause is always finite and temporal, even as it would be infinite and eternal being uncaused. And an uncaused cause is two things being one. Again, both eternal and temporal at the same time.

[JonathanL]

No, Natural Law is the uncaused cause of the nature of existence from the Naturalist perspective. If existence is infinite, then Natural Law is infinite. Cause and effect would be mutual characteristics of the physical nature of all possible universes and multiverses. Of course, the Natural Laws we observe for our universe are not likely the ultimate Natural Law of all possible universes or multiverses. If you are a Theist like I am I define the ultimate Natural Law as the nature of God's Creation.

And uncaused cause requires an uncaused existence. So either the uncaused cause and the uncaused existence are one and the same uncaused. Or the uncaused existence precedes the uncaused cause [Which I do not beleive is the case].

Well . . . a bit confusing, but Natural Law can possibly be the uncaused cause of the nature of our physical existence, and our physical existence can possibly by infinite. Based on the objective evidence there is no other possible alternative, except to 'believe' there is another uncaused cause.

There is a difference between existence and a cause. Causes, caused and uncaused are contingent on existing. Existence caused is contingent on a cause, whether the cause is caused or uncaused. But an uncaused existence is not contingent on anything. An uncaused cause is contingent on an uncased existence. Even though they are the one and the same uncaused entity. And uncaused cause has two different natures. Uncaused being eternal. And cause is always finite and temporal, even as it would be infinite and eternal being uncaused. And uncaused cause is two things being one. Again, both eternal and temporal at the same time.

[shunyadragon]

There is a difference between existence and a cause. Causes, caused and uncaused are contingent on existing. Existence caused is contingent on a cause, whether the cause is caused or uncaused. But an uncaused existence is not contingent on anything. An uncaused cause is contingent on an uncased existence. Even though they are the one and the same uncaused entity. And uncaused cause has two different natures. Uncaused being eternal. And cause is always finite and temporal, even as it would be infinite and eternal being uncaused. And uncaused cause is two things being one. Again, both eternal and temporal at the same time.

Natural Law is not contingent on anything that can be objectively determined. Natural Law is not existence. From the Naturalist perspective it is simply the uncaused cause of all of existence.

[37818]

Natural Law is not contingent on anything that can be objectively determined.

So Natural Law as you call it need not exist. Unless it is contingent on an uncaused existence.

Natural Law is not existence.

Ok.

From the Naturalist perspective it is simply the uncaused cause of all of existence.

That is dumb. An uncaused cause is either contingent upon an uncaused existence - or it is one and the same thing as the uncaused existence - or it simply does not exist. Whether a thing is caused or uncaused, an existence must preceded it or it cannot exist.

[Truthseeker]

And cause is always finite and temporal, even as it would be infinite and eternal being uncaused.

I am not certain to what "it" in the quotation refers.

[Adrift]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread for awhile, but yeah, hilarious. Like reading a Monty Python skit or something.

[JimL]

So do you think something which does not exist defines existing things?

Well let me answer your question with a question to you. Would you say that definitions of things are things in themselves?

[37818]

Well let me answer your question with a question to you. Would you say that definitions of things are things in themselves?

Yes. Now there are kinds of things, real and not real, actual and abstract, etc. But only existence is itself existence.

[JimL]

Yes. Now there are kinds of things, real and not real, actual and abstract, etc. But only existence is itself existence.

I think you contradict yourself in suggesting that not real things are real things and that not actual or abstract things are actual. If they are not real or actual, then they are not real or actual.

[37818]

I think you contradict yourself in suggesting that not real things are real things and that not actual or abstract things are actual. If they are not real or actual, then they are not real or actual.

So you are arguing there are no non real things. A unicorn is not a thing? It is certainly regarded as a non real thing, is it not?

Nothingness as a thing is not a thing. It is not a thing, being no thing, nothing.

[Christianbookworm]

So you are arguing there are no non real things. A unicorn is not a thing? It is certainly regarded as a non real thing is it not?

Nothingness as a thing is not a thing. It is not a thing, being no thing, nothing.

What about all of fiction? Kryptonians are not real things also!