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

[Leonhard]

Great. Good for you. I cannot imagine nothingness.

Carricature is right on this one, nothingness even if it doesn't exist is an entirely coherent notion.

[Leonhard]

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.

A square circle (the 'static' and 'finite' qualifiers are superfluous), is not only impossible qua not being capable of being physically manifest. Its impossible because its a logically self-defeating notion.

The same isn't true of nothingness, which is impossible to instantiate... something can't be an instance of nothing, so if anything exists you can't find nothingness. However the abstract notion of nothingness is not self-defeating.

[Carrikature]

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.

You should at least state the problem, not just say that there is one. I don't see a problem, and I don't find it concerning that you don't find it a coherent notion. So what?

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?

I know some people work backwards from "things exist" to some root cause that becomes logically necessary, but I think it's nonsense. Just because you can establish something that must exist for everything else to exist doesn't mean you can establish that things have to exist in the first place (which is the OP question, btw). Theists give all sorts of arguments about pretty much everything, though, so the existence of arguments doesn't mean much to me. If you have something particular in mind, trot it out.

[37818]

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.

We really disagree here. In my understanding to claim non-existence to exist as a concept is a logical fallacy. It is therefore a logical contradiction, as I understand it.

[37818]

A square circle (the 'static' and 'finite' qualifiers are superfluous), is not only impossible qua not being capable of being physically manifest. Its impossible because its a logically self-defeating notion.

We are in disagreement. A simple three dimentional object which consists of both square and circle shapes does exist. An infinite square circle is conceivable.

The same isn't true of nothingness, which is impossible to instantiate... something can't be an instance of nothing, so if anything exists you can't find nothingness. However the abstract notion of nothingness is not self-defeating.

We are in disagreement. Explain its conception as a reality unto itself.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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.

I'm not sure I see anything incoherent about a universe which admits of a causal explanation for anything within it, but not for itself. However, more problematically, I don't see that our particular universe does admit of a causal explanation for anything, except for the whole thing.

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?

I can't speak for Carrikature, but I'm aware of these arguments, and I find them wholly unconvincing. I see nothing which would prevent the natural cosmos from being a non-contingent entity in similar manner as is claimed by Classical Theists for God.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

We are in disagreement. A simple three dimentional object which consists of both square and circle shapes does exist. An infinite square circle is conceivable.

I'd agree that an infinite square is conceivable, provided we are utilizing a number system which would allow for such concepts (for example, the Hyperreals). However, a square is, by definition, a two dimensional figure, as is a circle. A three dimensional object composed of both square shapes and circle shapes is neither a square nor a circle.

We are in disagreement. Explain its conception as a reality unto itself.

I'll agree with you, here. The sort of ideal, Platonic "nothing" as a concept seems self-defeating, to me. In order for the concept to have any meaning, at all, one needs to define it and therefore ascribe properties to it. However, "nothing" cannot have properties, otherwise it becomes a thing.

That said, there are ways in which the term can be utilized which are not, in my opinion, paradoxical. For example, if I were to say, "There is nothing north of the North Pole," I am not claiming that the philosophical ideal of "nothing" is extant at some real location. Rather, I am saying that "north of the North Pole" is not a cogent concept. Similarly, if I were to claim, "There was nothing before the universe came into being," I am not saying that "nothing" was actually extant prior to the universe. I am saying that "before the universe came into being" is not a cogent concept.

So, if one considers "nothing" to be an actually possible state of affairs, I would absolutely agree that it is self-defeating. However, if one uses "nothing" as an indicator that no actually possible state of affairs can satisfy a particular scenario, I find nothing wrong with the phrase (pun intended).

[Leonhard]

You should at least state the problem, not just say that there is one. I don't see a problem, and I don't find it concerning that you don't find it a coherent notion. So what?

I'd be wrong to say that you're effectively disagreeing with the principle of sufficient reason?

I know some people work backwards from "things exist" to some root cause that becomes logically necessary, but I think it's nonsense. Just because you can establish something that must exist for everything else to exist doesn't mean you can establish that things have to exist in the first place (which is the OP question, btw).

Things exist. Obviously. I'm not sure what you mean otherwise when you say whether one can 'establish that things have to exist in the first place'. If you're asking whether things could exist, if for instance God didn't exist, I don't think that would be true either. As long as we're merely talking about a universe where there's a difference between things existing, and not-existing and there's a similar causality to this world... then yes you'd end up concluding that God exists.

[Leonhard]

We are in disagreement. A simple three dimentional object which consists of both square and circle shapes does exist.

I'd love to see it. I wonder if you're talking about a representation of a circle by an infinite number of pixels.

Explain its [nothingness?] conception as a reality unto itself.

Do you mind explaining this sentence? It doesn't make sense, I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. Do you want me to explain how nothingness comes into existence... that's a contradictory notion. Nothingness can't begin to exist, and it certainly doesn't exist as a reality... next to this one... on its own... really 37818, I'm trying to understand you here but you're not being clear at all.

[Leonhard]

I can't speak for Carrikature, but I'm aware of these arguments, and I find them wholly unconvincing. I see nothing which would prevent the natural cosmos from being a non-contingent entity in similar manner as is claimed by Classical Theists for God.

Does the universe undergo motion?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Does the universe undergo motion?

The universe as a whole? No. Motion is a description of localized phenomena within the universe.

[Leonhard]

The universe as a whole? No. Motion is a description of localized phenomena within the universe.

Change of any kind, I was using the philosophical terminology. Does the entropy of the universe increase? Do excited states of particles decay to ground state?

[Carrikature]

I'd be wrong to say that you're effectively disagreeing with the principle of sufficient reason?

You'd not be.

Things exist. Obviously. I'm not sure what you mean otherwise when you say whether one can 'establish that things have to exist in the first place'. If you're asking whether things could exist, if for instance God didn't exist, I don't think that would be true either.

Yes, things exist. The question is if things have to exist. You can't, for example, claim that God is the root cause of all things and then proceed to say that God exists because things need a cause.

As long as we're merely talking about a universe where there's a difference between things existing, and not-existing and there's a similar causality to this world... then yes you'd end up concluding that God exists.

I wouldn't and don't end up concluding that.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Change of any kind, I was using the philosophical terminology. Does the entropy of the universe increase? Do excited states of particles decay to ground state?

Those would still be descriptions of localized phenomena within the universe, and not of the universe as a whole. So I would still say that, no, I do not believe that the cosmos as a whole undergoes change of any kind.

[Leonhard]

Those would still be descriptions of localized phenomena within the universe, and not of the universe as a whole. So I would still say that, no, I do not believe that the cosmos as a whole undergoes change of any kind.

I'm not sure that makes sense. If we can talk about a screen of pixels, and you change any one of them, then it would be true that the screen of pixels had changed. Likewise if I strike a match, it from not being lit, to being lit, and a change would have occurred in the universe.