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

[37818]

. . . Why does this deity exist rather than not exist? . . .

There is an uncaused existence. In my view any entity which is subordinate to existence is no God. If one is asking if God exists. In my view no. Existence exists. And needs no God. And I am not talking about spacetime.

[Gret]

It seems it is a valid question from the scientific standpoint.

I say it is a valid question to consider from the standpoint of the scientific method and scientists...NOT because I am confident that these will provide answers but because many scientist...physicists particularly...are trying to figure it out. IOW, they are working on the problem. And if an answer that isn't depending on someone (including God) arbitrarily asserting that "this" is why is to be found I think those methods and the people using those methods seem to be the most likely way we'll find an answer. I mean, I would wonder if even a God could "know" for certain why he exists rather than not existing. Could he answer why he is in a timeless existence and has the power to create universes?

I feel like the theists with their answers "Because God" have either put the question out of reach or failed to fully embrace what the question is. If their "because God" answer is considered useful, then I think they haven't fully embrace the question, because that answer is only as useful as me saying, "Because of my mom" when someone asks me "why are your shoe laces tied rather than untied?" It seems a superficially useful answer but it doesn't explain why shoe laces are tied rather than untied if one is looking for reasons rather than methods.

But the real thing (IMHO) is that as far as I'm concerned, I'd include this "God" in the answer "Because God," as part of the set of "somethings" needing an explanation for why they exist. Why is there this God rather than nothing...however one might want to define nothing? God seems to be something...in fact I think many theists think "God" is the real existence...the basic existence...etc. So are they putting God outside the question of why? If so, as far as I'm concerned, they are kind of throwing in the towel to even get a good reason for why there is something rather than nothing.

BTW, my "very little" is the only way I can describe how I feel about god or the supernatural. I have very little faith/belief that there is a supernatural world at all. I guess one might want to classify me as a naturalist..I think nature and the natural world is what there is. But that comes with baggage I don't want to emphasize...i.e. that I know there is nothing else besides natural existence. I don't know that, but I think that. I say I have little faith...not that I pretend not to have any, but because it isn't something I try to cultivate. I don't want more and if someone points out that some belief I might have is due to having too much faith in anything, I'd be quicker to drop the belief...reduce it on my probability scale of what I think is, rather than try to maintain the faith I seem to have used to arrive at that belief.

[JimL]

Thank you for qualifying that.

Personally I see a difference between the existence we know as "spacetime and matter" from existence in which things do exist. Spacetime has existence, for example. But is not the existence proper. Existence and space are two different things in my view.

How would you define "existence proper"?

[37818]

How would you define "existence proper"?

The self existent existence in which all other existences exist.

[JimL]

The self existent existence in which all other existences exist.

Yes, agreed, but how do you define it. The self existent existence in which all other things exist is of the same substance as those things, ergo they are one and the same thing.

[pancreasman]

There is an uncaused existence. In my view any entity which is subordinate to existence is no God. If one is asking if God exists. In my view no. Existence exists. And needs no God. And I am not talking about spacetime.

Who says there is an uncaused existence? Why do they say it, on what basis.

In my opinion you are tying yourself up with words. To say existence itself exists is to say nothing meaningful. Convince me.

[37818]

Who says there is an uncaused existence? Why do they say it, on what basis.

In my opinion you are tying yourself up with words. To say existence itself exists is to say nothing meaningful. Convince me.

Can you honestly say that there was no existence and an existence began from nothing? So it is either nothingness and out of nothingness came existence some finite way. Or there was always an existence in which all caused existences exist in.

Now what makes sense to you?

Now our known universe, spacetime and matter, 13.7 billion years ago. What was before that?

Even if we presume an infinite series of causes and effects leading up to our known universe. That still would need some kind of back drop existence. A not caused existence. Anything which begins to exist has a caused. Else we are arguing for an uncaused finite existence out of nothingness.

Again, what makes sense to you?

Now I know what I believe. Just because I believe something, that mere belief does not make that view true. Though I really think it is, or I would not believe as I do.

In my view, if there was ever nothingness, there would still be nothingness. None of this would be here ever.

So my basic argument is, there never was nothingness. Therefore there always was existence. [An uncaused existence]

[mattbballman31]

I'll note that on my Naturalist worldview, there was never "absolutely Nothing," either. And I do understand that Christians generally think of the question as being, "Why is there something [physical] rather than nothing [physical]?" However, I was asking a very different question.

Okay, I would say that there's good reasons to think the universe began to exist, or that the Greater Cosmos began to exist. I rely on the philosophical arguments more than the cosmological ones, but I do think the cosmological ones have weight. I don't think a past-eternal universe/multiverse to be metaphysically possible, and I think all the proposed cosmogonical models on the market have thermodynamic or expansion issues that can't avert a singularity. So, the 'physical' something, whether classical or quantum, had a past-terminus. Which leads to . . .

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I were to agree that the whole of reality can be traced back to a single, eternal deity. Why does this deity exist rather than not exist? I argue that the theist has no better answer for this question than does the Naturalist who is attempting to answer why the physical cosmos exists rather than not. In both cases, we are left with something which just seems tautological: it exists because it exists.

I'd say the deity exists because its (I'll say 'its' for now, since I can't infer a 'Him' from my premises here) properties include those to which the categories of beginning/end don't apply. It has the reason for its existence in itself. This seems to be a good inference from the idea that this deity is timeless/spaceless, and time and space are required for the category of 'having a beginning' to apply to it. It also wouldn't be made of matter, and thus it's immune from thermodynamic decay. All sorts of questions are left hanging, but if I can feel where you might go, it'll involve my philosophy of metaphor. After all, the question 'What was God doing?', or 'When did God decide to create?', or 'Why at that point, rather than another?' all presuppose a temporal consciousness and a temporal environment. I remember a debate that Matt Dillahunty had with Matt Slick, and Dillahunty asked Slick, 'If I've had a million dollars for no seconds, did I ever have a million dollars?' The short answer is 'No.' If applied to timeless existence, we run into trouble: our concepts, when applied to the super-sensible, are dripping with metaphor, since our mode of perception and experience is temporal, our mode of existence is temporal. We need to be able to refer to a Being with language that can't literally refer, even though, metaphorically, it has a literal referent. I love the book Flatland. The lesson I can take from that is that just as two-dimensional objects had no imaginative correlation with a three-dimensional world (since they had no experience with it), perhaps that's our relation to a timeless realm/world (5 - or more? - dimensions), since we are three-dimensional objects in the flow of temporal becoming (4th dimension: assuming an A-theory). At the last resort, this way gives me the faint glimmer of a meaning as to what the mode of perception of a timeless being might be, or the nature of timeless modes of existence might be.

I've also had to keep carefully distinct in my mind 3 notions: having a concept, being able to imagine that to which the concept refers, and having a concept of the referent to which the first concept metaphorically refers. The 2nd notion I cannot apply to the super-sensible: if I form an image, it's trapped in spatial/temporal imagery. If I form a metaphorical concept via Coleridge's primary imagination, I have a concept akin to, like unto, a reality of which I've had no experience. You see how this is leading me down a rabbit hole? All of this metaphorical philosophizing is intimately tied to my idea, indebted to Aldous Huxley, that an alteration to our mode of consciousness is prior to the metaphorical grasping of super-sensible realities, that the trigger to the alteration can be pulled by the inherent power of the metaphor as imaginatively grasped, or that such power is consequent, or comes after, the alteration. The two might work simultaneously, so I'm not sure, like two blades on a pair of scissors.

Anyway, I look forward to your critique!

[shunyadragon]

Can you honestly say that there was no existence and an existence began from nothing? So it is either nothingness and out of nothingness came existence some finite way. Or there was always an existence in which all caused existences exist in.

Now what makes sense to you?

I believe this has been answered many times before. Scientists and atheists do not 'say' there was no existence nor existence began from nothing. It is not 'nothingness and out of nothingness came existence some finite way.'

It is closer to say; There has always been an existence caused by Natural Law as the cause from the Naturalist perspective.

Now our known universe, spacetime and matter, 13.7 billion years ago.

This is only true if some of the models of the origin of our universe are true. If other models that describe our universe as not having a beginning, then the above is false.

What was before that?

Depends, but fundamentally it is unknown. Arguments cannot be based on unknowns, because either side may be true.

Even if we presume an infinite series of causes and effects leading up to our known universe. That still would need some kind of back drop existence. A not caused existence. Anything which begins to exist has a caused. Else we are arguing for an uncaused finite existence out of nothingness.

True, anything that began to exist has a cause, but by the evidence Natural Law can be the cause. Based on the evidence it cannot be concluded that our physical existence began to exist. The 'backdrop of existence would simply be Natural Law.

Again, what makes sense to you?

So my basic argument is, there never was nothingness. Therefore there always was existence. [An uncaused existence]

From the Naturalist perspective it makes sense this would be worded the same, as Natural Law being the uncaused cause of the infinite physical existence. From my perspective God Created our physical existence and Natural Law, but this cannot be concluded based on the evidence. By simple observation Natural Laws are the cause of everything we can observe.

[shunyadragon]

The self existent existence in which all other existences exist.

This can reasonably be described as an infinite physical existence governed by the uncaused cause of Natural Law.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Okay, I would say that there's good reasons to think the universe began to exist, or that the Greater Cosmos began to exist. I rely on the philosophical arguments more than the cosmological ones, but I do think the cosmological ones have weight. I don't think a past-eternal universe/multiverse to be metaphysically possible, and I think all the proposed cosmogonical models on the market have thermodynamic or expansion issues that can't avert a singularity. So, the 'physical' something, whether classical or quantum, had a past-terminus.

How are you defining "began to exist," in this instance? If you are arguing that there was a time when the cosmos did not exist, I will vehemently disagree, as I find that concept entirely incoherent.

It has the reason for its existence in itself.

Again, this just seems tautological. I would make the same assertion for space-time.

I love the book Flatland. The lesson I can take from that is that just as two-dimensional objects had no imaginative correlation with a three-dimensional world (since they had no experience with it), perhaps that's our relation to a timeless realm/world (5 - or more? - dimensions), since we are three-dimensional objects in the flow of temporal becoming (4th dimension: assuming an A-theory).

I'm also a big fan of Flatland. I'll note that while everyday descriptive language has a great deal of difficulty painting a picture of 4-Dimensional spaces (or higher), they are fairly easy to describe mathematically.

I've also had to keep carefully distinct in my mind 3 notions: having a concept, being able to imagine that to which the concept refers, and having a concept of the referent to which the first concept metaphorically refers.

Generally, I agree that it can be quite difficult to conceptualize certain things which may nonetheless be actual to reality. However, in order to have a cogent discussion of such things, it becomes necessary to at least offer coherent definitions of the topics.

[37818]

This can reasonably be described as an infinite physical existence governed by the uncaused cause of Natural Law.

Natural Law > existence.

So Natural Law came before it existed.

[JimL]

Natural Law > existence.

So Natural Law came before it existed.

Neither need come before the other, natural law would be nothing more than the determined nature of existence itself.

[37818]

Neither need come before the other, natural law would be nothing more than the determined nature of existence itself.

Oh, you want it both ways.

Existence precedes what ever exists. So then is Natural Law and the uncaused existence one and the same? So be it, if that is true.

[JimL]

Oh, you want it both ways.

Existence precedes what ever exists. So then is Natural Law and the uncaused existence one and the same? So be it, if that is true.

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