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

[Leonhard]

You'd not be.

That would be problematic, but lets not have that discussion here.

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.

Its true that God doesn't exist because things need a cause. However as long as you have a difference between being and non-being, and that anything does exist, God must exist. The only way for God not to exist is to conceive of a universe where there's no distinction between being and non-being.

I'm not going to make an ontological argument though. Its a bit late though, though you might have a point here. I need to think about it in the morning.

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

That you don't is obvious, you're an atheist. And I didn't actually argue this, I'm just saying that as long as you're down to that barebone of mundane observations, you can conclude that God exists with certainty.

[Carrikature]

That would be problematic, but lets not have that discussion here.

At the risk of being blunt and/or rude, I don't much care if people think there's a problem if they can't be bothered to say what it is. This is the second time you've done this. If you don't think this is the place, fine. Start a new thread. I happen to think it's pretty relevant to this thread, but whatever works.

Its true that God doesn't exist because things need a cause. However as long as you have a difference between being and non-being, and that anything does exist, God must exist. The only way for God not to exist is to conceive of a universe where there's no distinction between being and non-being.

Yeah, because just saying God must exist under certain circumstances is enough. Are you past the point where you're even going to bother supporting your statements? I'm pretty sure you'd take someone else to task for failing to do so. You've not presented an argument and even went so far as to say you're not going to. What part of this should I take seriously?

That you don't is obvious, you're an atheist.

I'm not, actually, and never have been. There are pretty good reasons why I distinguish myself from atheism, even if many Christians can't seem to wrap their heads around anything more complicated than saved/not saved.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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.

This would necessitate that Time is not an element of the universe, but rather a governing factor which stands above the universe. I reject that notion.

If Time is a property of the universe, then comparing a match when unlit to the same match when lit is only a localized description of space compared at different points in time. It is not a description of the universe as a whole, of which both events are a part.

[Leonhard]

This would necessitate that Time is not an element of the universe, but rather a governing factor which stands above the universe. I reject that notion.

Why?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Why?

If time is an element of the universe, then any two points in time t and t' are both localized elements which are coextant within the universe. Comparing the state of affairs at t as compared to the state of affairs at t' no more describes the whole of the universe than does describing the state of affairs in New Jersey as compared to the state of affairs in New South Wales.

[37818]

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

Will I do not have an image handy, if you visualize two solid bars together of equal diameter at 90 degrees to each other. Now visualize both bars are no longer than their common diameter and all four of their ends are rounded to match their common diameter. In one view you can see they appear square and in another two views they appear round.

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.

OK. What was intending by my question, how do you conceptualize "nothingness?" Can you give a description?

[Leonhard]

What was intending by my question, how do you conceptualize "nothingness?" Can you give a description?

Yes, that's easy. You already know what it means for something to be, or for something not to be. Nothingness is essentially 'not being'.

[Leonhard]

Will I do not have an image handy, if you visualize two solid bars together of equal diameter at 90 degrees to each other. Now visualize both bars are no longer than their common diameter and all four of their ends are rounded to match their common diameter. In one view you can see they appear square and in another two views they appear round.

That's not a description of a square circle, that's a description of a three dimensional object, the projections of which along certain axes would correspond to a solid disc, or a solid square, the contours of those two projections would be a circle in one projection, and a square in another. However that these two different projections, from the same object, creates two different figures, does not mean that you can have a square circle.

In two dimensions a circle is defined as being a line with the property that all points along the line are equidistant from a single point in its center. And a square is defined as 4-polygon with the property that all four lines have the same length and that their mutual angles are equal to 90 degrees.

No matter what construction you attempt only one of these two definitions will be fulfilled in the same two dimensional contour.

Moving into non-eucledean spaces won't help you either.

You can't have a square circle. The two definitions are mutually exclusive.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Moving into non-eucledean spaces won't help you either.

I was actually just thinking about this, wondering if there were any non-Euclidean spaces wherein all points on the perimeter of a square would be equidistant from a central point, thereby making it also a circle.

[Cerebrum123]

Yes, that's easy. You already know what it means for something to be, or for something not to be. Nothingness is essentially 'not being'.

To be, or not to be, that is the question—

[Leonhard]

I was actually just thinking about this, wondering if there were any non-Euclidean spaces wherein all points on the perimeter of a square would be equidistant from a central point, thereby making it also a circle.

To be fair I think you could make something, but the only way I can see how you'd do it with something like geodesics would involve discontinous boundaries.

[mattbballman31]

That place would not be "nothing."

The problem with "nothing" is that it's not simply the place where other things are not. That would be a thing, and therefore not "nothing." You seem to be conflating empty space with "nothing." If you are utilizing the word "nothing" as a referent, as in your Batman example, then it cannot actually be nothing. A referent, by definition, refers to something; and something, by definition, is not nothing.

A referent refers to something, but 'something' can mean something or nothing. When a referent refers to something (something 1), something means what is referred to. When I use the word 'nothing' it is a referent and it refers to something1, since it refers to what it refers to. You can't restrict referents to existing things, otherwise we can't refer to non-existent things. A non-existent thing falls under the category of 'nothing', since there is no thing in existence to which the referent refers. Nothing refers to the non-instantiation of any properties whatsoever. A way out of this is to ascribe to 'nothing' negative properties like having the property of not being something. But this isn't the right semantics to have, in my opinion. I don't think there are negative properties; there are failures to have positive properties. A hole doesn't have the negative property of not being solid with a hollow; it has lacks the positive property of being a solid without a hollow. The word 'nothing' refers to this lack of positive properties due to their not being exemplified. Thus, it seems as if referents can refer without having a something (sense 2) to refer to; referents can refer to a lacking as well as a having. I'm not equating holes with nothing, of course; but the same principle applies. Just as the referent 'hole' can refer to a lack; the referent 'nothing' can refer to a total lack, where 'total lack' is cashed out in terms of the non-exemplification of any positive properties whatever, which I think are the only kinds of properties there are.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Nothing refers to the non-instantiation of any properties whatsoever. A way out of this is to ascribe to 'nothing' negative properties like having the property of not being something.. I don't think there are negative properties; there are failures to have positive properties... The word 'nothing' refers to this lack of positive properties due to their not being exemplified... the referent 'nothing' can refer to a total lack, where 'total lack' is cashed out in terms of the non-exemplification of any positive properties whatever, which I think are the only kinds of properties there are.

This seems fairly self-contradictory.

1.) There are no negative properties.
2.) A thing can fail to have positive properties.
3.) "Nothing" is a thing which fails to have any positive property.

However, both "being a thing" and "failing" would certainly seem to be positive properties. Therefore, we have reached a contradiction, and at least one of these premises must be false.

[mattbballman31]

This seems fairly self-contradictory.

1.) There are no negative properties.
2.) A thing can fail to have positive properties.
3.) "Nothing" is a thing which fails to have any positive property.

However, both "being a thing" and "failing" would certainly seem to be positive properties. Therefore, we have reached a contradiction, and at least one of these premises must be false.

I deny 3. Nothing in the relevant sense is 'not anything', being a term of universal negation. It's a pronoun, so it can be made look like a thing grammatically. I can say that I had nothing to eat today. But it wouldn't be right to ask how it tasted. 1 seems to make sense, since permitting it would involve the implausible idea that I have a potentially infinite number of properties: I would have the property of not being any of the potentially infinite amount of natural numbers, for example.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I deny 3.

I was attempting to construct a set of premises directly from your previous post. If you think it to be in error, I'd gladly appreciate a corrected set so that I can better understand what you are attempting to state.

Nothing in the relevant sense is 'not anything', being a term of universal negation. It's a pronoun, so it can be made look like a thing grammatically. I can say that I had nothing to eat today. But it wouldn't be right to ask how it tasted. 1 seems to make sense, since permitting it would involve the implausible idea that I have a potentially infinite number of properties: I would have the property of not being any of the potentially infinite amount of natural numbers, for example.

You seem to be talking about the colloquial idiomatic usage of the word "nothing."

So, when a person says, "I had nothing to eat today," he is saying that he has not eaten today. He is not saying, "Today, I ate <i>that which is devoid of all properties</i>." This is the common usage of the word "nothing" as an idiom for the negation of a verb. For another example, if I were to say, "There is nothing north of the North Pole," I am not claiming that there exists a "nothingness" north of the North Pole. I am saying that "north of the North Pole" does not exist.

So, are you saying that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" should be more clearly phrased, "Why does anything at all exist rather than everything not existing?"