Originally posted by 37818
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostIt 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 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.Last edited by Leonhard; 12-22-2014, 02:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThis 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.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAre 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'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostI 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.Last edited by 37818; 12-23-2014, 10:36 AM.. . . 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 Leonhard View PostA 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.Last edited by 37818; 12-23-2014, 10:55 AM.. . . 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 Leonhard View PostThis 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.
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?"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWe are in disagreement. A simple three dimentional object which consists of both square and circle shapes does exist. An infinite square circle is conceivable.
We are in disagreement. Explain its conception as a reality unto itself.
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)."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostYou 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 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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWe are in disagreement. A simple three dimentional object which consists of both square and circle shapes does exist.
Explain its [nothingness?] conception as a reality unto itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostDoes the universe undergo motion?"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThe universe as a whole? No. Motion is a description of localized phenomena within the universe.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'd be wrong to say that you're effectively disagreeing with the principle of sufficient reason?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThings 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.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAs 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'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostChange 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?"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThose 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.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
603 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment