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

[37818]

I understand that christians, if that is what they think, aren't going to change their view because of what I have to say, the point though is that you have no logical basis for thinking it, other than what you call a metaphysical belief, which is no more than a fill in the gap of knowledge that can't be proven otherwise argument.

Just because a thing is believed does not make a thing true. But on the basis a thing is true, it should believed, if it need be believed.

There is logic to what Christians believe. And what is regarded as the written word of God is the criterion of that truth, and the criteria of the truths.

There are essentials of the faith, which all genuine Christians agree. There are secondary issues where Christians can and do disagree.

Now, I as an individual have argued that there is, uncaused existence. And I as an individual have argued, that self existent existence to be the identity of God. And also have argued that if it is not the identity of God, there is no God. It is real simple. Now which way do you want it. (Not that how one wants something is going to change what is true.

What is the answer you think you are looking for? I contend, if one is willing to do God's will, they can know from God that it is so. (see John 7:16, 17.) But you cannot do what you do not understand. Or what you find you cannot believe.

Now the hope of Christians is eternal life (John 5:12). And they can know it (1 John 5:13, Titus 1:2). God promises full forgiveness (Jeremiah 31:31-34) through faith in the finished work of His Son (John 19:30). And it is testified in the claim of the bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). There are historical elements which can be confirmed. The Jewish Passover. April 6th 30 CE. Julian date. (Mark 14:12, April 5, 30 CE). Then in 70 CE the temple itself was taken down (Daniel 9:24, 26). And has not been restored for 1944 years now(Deuteronomy 27:26). So as I see it, either Jesus is the Messiah or Judaism is shown to be false. (see Jesus' claim John 5:46, 47.)

[37818]

Again good question. Though you did not originally address this to me, which is a different subject then this thread. There is actually a thread in Comparative Religions.

I will check it out. Thanks.

No. Since my starting premise is uncaused existence, which is eternal. All causes in my view are temporal.

Ok, that is my premise, but as far as an effective argument you are teaching to the believers.

OK, what do you mean?

True, sort of, but so what? Natural Law can possibly be uncaused.

Temporal things are caused. A cause effectively is therefore temporal cause. But an uncaused cause would be both eternal and temporal. Uncased being eternal. And that all causes are in fact temporal. And uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal.

No, Natural Law is not a temporal cause by default. There is no objective evidence that there is another cause other then Natural Law. What you assert is simply a statement of 'belief.'

Oh, then you have evidence to the contrary? That my "belief" is not warranted on this. Explain how a cause is not temporal? Cause and effect. Action (temporal cause) reaction (temporal effect). There is nothing in our caused existence that can be measured that is not temporal. Now if you are referring to something which cannot be measured (such as before what we think of as the origin of our known universe). Explain your thoughts here.

[shunyadragon]

Oh, then you have evidence to the contrary?

You are requesting a fallacy by asking for evidence of proving the negative.

how a cause is not temporal? Cause and effect.

If the cause is an uncaused cause.

temporal cause) reaction (temporal effect). There is nothing in our caused existence that can be measured that is not temporal. Now if you are referring to something which cannot be measured (such as before what we think of as the origin of our known universe). Explain your thoughts here.

Remains an assumption on your end. Simply, Natural Could possibly an uncaused cause of everything. There is no objective evidence of anything that caused Natural Law

[mattbballman31]

Sorry I've been on hiatus. Life is so unpredictable. I'm in the Air Force and my schedule has been crazy lately. I'll try to keep up as much as possible.

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.

X (the cosmos) begins to exist iff there is no X prior (causally/logically) to t=0, and X enters into the property-exemplification at T=1. Since a property of the cosmos is time itself, I'm not sure it makes much sense to say that there was a 'time' during which the cosmos did not exist. Since the cosmos' beginning to exist involves the beginning of time, I'd have to say that the cosmos entered in the property-exemplification relation at T=1. So, I'd agree that, in this sense, the cosmos not existing during a 'time' is incoherent. This line of thought presupposes the coherency of timeless states of existence. I believe such a state to be logically possible, and it involves the coherency of not making imaginability a necessary criterion for conceptual coherency. As I've said, I can't imagine a billion-sided polygon, but the concept is logically coherent, since it involves no contradiction. There is, at least, no explicit contradiction in the concept of timeless existence, unless the implicit assumption is drawn out that equates existence with temporal existence. But my analysis of existence only involves entering into the property-exemplification relation, which - on the face of it - doesn't automatically exclude timeless properties, since - again - I can't discern explicit contradiction. A timeless property is a property which negates the applicability of the temporal - the contradiction is rendered explicit (in my mind) if we were to ascribe both timelessness and temporality to one and the same object at the same time/in the same sense. Barring objections subjugating mathematical and other necessary truths from being Rortian, social constructions, the truth-value of such truths don't seem restricted to temporality, since we can imagine a possible world in which such truths still hold even if a temporal realm in which they could be linguistically codified is absent.

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

This, at least, makes tautological assertions more than a non-plus. That you could make the same assertion for space-time presupposes that the ascription of such an assertion a logically coherent one. To discover something to be tautological, while redundant, advances us from knowing less to knowing more. To render a statement tautological seems to mean that it's known with at least psychological certitude, if not logical certitude. 5 X 4 = 20 is a tautology, and yet it's an application of axiomatic rules of multiplication. But to the novice learning multiplication, the clarity of the equation is out of reach. Supposing the natural course of events to be causally related as are the gears of a clock, an omniscient mind would know every causally implied event with tautological certitude, such events including anything as mundane as that it will rain tomorrow. Perhaps to say that God's reason for His existence resides in the necessary property of self-existence is a tautological, axiomatic result of conceptual analysis of the God-concept, and it can no more be discarded on that score any more than saying a square necessarily is a quadrilateral polygon with four equal sides and angles. Admittedly, we're still a far cry from a demonstration of such God's existence, but it seems plausible that such properties can be derived via conceptual analysis of the God-concept. This doesn't (to be fair) prevent you from applying such a tautological property to space-time itself. My disqualification of that property as applied to space-time is grounded on other reasons than merely pointing out its tautological quality. But in terms of merely conceptual clarity, independent of its being veridical, there doesn't seem to be any a priori reason to dismiss this tautological property on the isolated grounds that it's a tautology.

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.

Oh, I know! And the mathematical descriptions are good as far as they go. The important point, though, is that with the super-sensible generally, even if the mathematical descriptions are internally consistent and come to mathematically represent whatever phenomenon it seeks to describe, the mathematician does something we all do before we learned mathematics, which seems just as limited (linguistically) as we were before. Suppose mathematics succeeded in formulating an equation for a phenomenon we had before only understood via metaphors or symbols designed to trigger meaning in our imaginations with images, which - if interpreted properly - we came to understand were 'like' the reality attempting to be understood, which we've never experienced, or we can't experience presently with our temporal/spatial mode of consciousness. Just suppose that. It still seems that we've only shifted from one set of poetical, figurative set of symbols to a new set of mathematical symbols. We didn't move from symbol to symbolized; we moved from poetical metaphor to mathematical symbol. The metaphor of Flatland is just as metaphorical as a mathematical description (confining the point to super-sensible or not-yet experienced aspects of reality). This isn't bad, though, since I'd say we, again, move from knowing less to knowing more once we have the option to shift back and forth between helpful, poetical metaphors and mathematical symbols, each in its own right illuminating what its symbols permit to be illuminated. But what the mathematical symbols are lacking in, and what the poetical metaphors excel in, is that amount of enriched, imaginative meaning that rushes into the imagination in understanding the super-sensible reality (whether it exists or not). To quantify it, the mathematical description might be 95% literal, yet 5% metaphorical, due its inherent nature as mathematical symbol, but its rigid symbolization giving it axiomatic exactitude regarding what it's symbolically representing. A 'ditch' to full understanding is still there, since we still haven't moved beyond symbols to symbolized. The 'meaning' we gather from the extended Flatland metaphor seems 'more' and 'richer' than even a more accurate mathematical description with naked variables and numbers in a theorem. So, what mathematics gains in terms of literal accuracy, it seems to lose in terms of the richness of the meaning that could be had otherwise via imaginative metaphor in such things as Flatland. And at the end of the day, both the poet and mathematician have to admit that neither of them have attained to being purely literal, since both utilize symbols.

[JimL]

Just because a thing is believed does not make a thing true. But on the basis a thing is true, it should believed, if it need be believed.

There is logic to what Christians believe. And what is regarded as the written word of God is the criterion of that truth, and the criteria of the truths.

There are essentials of the faith, which all genuine Christians agree. There are secondary issues where Christians can and do disagree.

Now, I as an individual have argued that there is, uncaused existence. And I as an individual have argued, that self existent existence to be the identity of God. And also have argued that if it is not the identity of God, there is no God. It is real simple. Now which way do you want it. (Not that how one wants something is going to change what is true.

What is the answer you think you are looking for? I contend, if one is willing to do God's will, they can know from God that it is so. (see John 7:16, 17.) But you cannot do what you do not understand. Or what you find you cannot believe.

Now the hope of Christians is eternal life (John 5:12). And they can know it (1 John 5:13, Titus 1:2). God promises full forgiveness (Jeremiah 31:31-34) through faith in the finished work of His Son (John 19:30). And it is testified in the claim of the bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). There are historical elements which can be confirmed. The Jewish Passover. April 6th 30 CE. Julian date. (Mark 14:12, April 5, 30 CE). Then in 70 CE the temple itself was taken down (Daniel 9:24, 26). And has not been restored for 1944 years now(Deuteronomy 27:26). So as I see it, either Jesus is the Messiah or Judaism is shown to be false. (see Jesus' claim John 5:46, 47.)

Yes, you have argued this point, but your argument is not logical, it is purely Biblical. Your argument is that there is no such thing as nothingness, and that from nothing, nothing comes, but then you go on to argue that the world is created from out of nothing. The only justification you give for this is that the Bible says its so.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sorry I've been on hiatus. Life is so unpredictable. I'm in the Air Force and my schedule has been crazy lately. I'll try to keep up as much as possible.

No worries! I just had to pick up a third job, and I'm completing a degree in Mathematics, so I know that feel, bro. The nice thing about Internet forums is that the posts will still be here whenever we get the opportunity to respond.

X (the cosmos) begins to exist iff there is no X prior (causally/logically) to t=0, and X enters into the property-exemplification at T=1.

I see two main issues with this formulation. Firstly, "enters into the property-exemplification" seems just as ambiguous as "began to exist," though certainly more verbose. Enters from whence? From some point of non-property-exemplification? What does that even mean?

The second issue is that you seem to be saying there is no X prior to t=0, and there is an X at t=1, which would leave open the possibility of temporal causation at some point t where 0<t<1; however, we both seem to agree that it is incoherent to assert that Time did not exist at time t=0, so this formulation does not seem applicable to the cosmos, as a whole.

This line of thought presupposes the coherency of timeless states of existence. I believe such a state to be logically possible, and it involves the coherency of not making imaginability a necessary criterion for conceptual coherency. As I've said, I can't imagine a billion-sided polygon, but the concept is logically coherent, since it involves no contradiction.

Whether or not imaginability is a requirement for coherency, definition most certainly is. I can quite easily define a billion-sided polygon, and in defining it, I can differentiate it from objects which are not billion-sided polygons, even if I cannot imagine the whole polygon in my head. How does one define what it means to exist timelessly? How does one differentiate a thing which exists timelessly from a thing which exists temporally or one which does not exist, at all?

My disqualification of that property as applied to space-time is grounded on other reasons than merely pointing out its tautological quality.

On what grounds would you assert that space-time cannot exemplify the property of self-existence?

Suppose mathematics succeeded in formulating an equation for a phenomenon we had before only understood via metaphors or symbols designed to trigger meaning in our imaginations with images, which - if interpreted properly - we came to understand were 'like' the reality attempting to be understood, which we've never experienced, or we can't experience presently with our temporal/spatial mode of consciousness. Just suppose that. It still seems that we've only shifted from one set of poetical, figurative set of symbols to a new set of mathematical symbols. We didn't move from symbol to symbolized; we moved from poetical metaphor to mathematical symbol.

I actually agree with you, here; however, the mathematical descriptions tend to be far more accurate, precise, and valuable for making predictions than do poetical metaphors. As an example, let's take a look at Gravity.

When Aristotle described Gravity, he did so by employing poetical metaphor. He said that things fall to the Earth because they have an intrinsic desire to move towards the center of the world. Heavier things, he argued, are heavier because they have a stronger desire to move towards the center of the world than do light things. A couple of millennia later, Newton offered a mathematical description of the phenomenon, , which described Gravity far more precisely and accurately than did Aristotle's depiction, and which allowed scientists to predict the motion of planets and stars. Three hundred years after that, Einstein further refined Newton's depiction into , which allowed even better predictions and gave us even further understanding of the effects of Gravity. However, it is still clearly apparent that this is only a description of the phenomenon, rather than being equivalent to the phenomenon itself.

So, while no one would claim that the mathematical descriptions are the phenomena being described, it is certainly true that the mathematical descriptions are far more accurate and powerful than are poetical metaphors.
The metaphor of Flatland is just as metaphorical as a mathematical description (confining the point to super-sensible or not-yet experienced aspects of reality). This isn't bad, though, since I'd say we, again, move from knowing less to knowing more once we have the option to shift back and forth between helpful, poetical metaphors and mathematical symbols, each in its own right illuminating what its symbols permit to be illuminated. But what the mathematical symbols are lacking in, and what the poetical metaphors excel in, is that amount of enriched, imaginative meaning that rushes into the imagination in understanding the super-sensible reality (whether it exists or not). To quantify it, the mathematical description might be 95% literal, yet 5% metaphorical, due its inherent nature as mathematical symbol, but its rigid symbolization giving it axiomatic exactitude regarding what it's symbolically representing. A 'ditch' to full understanding is still there, since we still haven't moved beyond symbols to symbolized. The 'meaning' we gather from the extended Flatland metaphor seems 'more' and 'richer' than even a more accurate mathematical description with naked variables and numbers in a theorem. So, what mathematics gains in terms of literal accuracy, it seems to lose in terms of the richness of the meaning that could be had otherwise via imaginative metaphor in such things as Flatland. And at the end of the day, both the poet and mathematician have to admit that neither of them have attained to being purely literal, since both utilize symbols.[/QUOTE]

[37818]

You are requesting a fallacy by asking for evidence of proving the negative.

Not necessarily. The positive argument that there is no God is base on existence existing and God needing to be shown to exist. Existence does not need God, God needs existence. That would be a type of negation of there being a God.

If the cause is an uncaused cause.

Then we disagree fundamentally on what is a cause. I contend all causes are temporal. So an uncaused cause would be both eternal and temporal. Two opposite natures in one entity. It would be a cause, a temporal entity which has always existed as a temporal entity. Being eternal, having always existed as a temporal entity. That how I see this.

Remains an assumption on your end. Simply, Natural Could possibly an uncaused cause of everything. There is no objective evidence of anything that caused Natural Law

That can be held as a concept. I personally see what we refer to as natural law, being eternal, being natural revelation (like Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17, 18. Psalm 119:89.)

[shunyadragon]

Not necessarily. The positive argument that there is no God is base on existence existing and God needing to be shown to exist. Existence does not need God, God needs existence. That would be a type of negation of there being a God.

This is at best confusing. You need to back up and respond again so I can understand you. The argument there is no God, is not a positive argument.

Then we disagree fundamentally on what is a cause. I contend all causes are temporal. So an uncaused cause would be both eternal and temporal. Two opposite natures in one entity. It would be a cause, a temporal entity which has always existed as a temporal entity. Being eternal, having always existed as a temporal entity. That how I see this.

Fine, Natural Law can possibly be the uncaused cause and both eternal and temporal. There is no known objective evidence for a cause of Natural Law.

That can be held as a concept. I personally see what we refer to as natural law, being eternal, being natural revelation (like Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 10:17, 18. Psalm 119:89.)

We have been here before a number of times. Yes, I believe natural law, being eternal, being natural revelation as a theist like you. Unfortunately there is no convincing argument here for those who do not believe it.

[37818]

This is at best confusing. You need to back up and respond again so I can understand you. The argument there is no God, is not a positive argument.

Is it or is it not a positive statement, that there is uncaused existence? Is it or is it not a positive statement that an uncaused existence is not in need of any cause, such as a Creator or even the Natural Law?
All arguments for God are for the existence of God, existence being preresumed without argument. Existence is not in need of God, but God is in the need of proof of existence in said arguments!

We have been here before a number of times. Yes, I believe natural law, being eternal, being natural revelation as a theist like you. Unfortunately there is no convincing argument here for those who do not believe it.

Well, as a Christian I only need to show that I have sufficient reason for myself. I the need to hear why that reason is not or cannot be true. (1 Peter 3:15.)

[shunyadragon]

Is it or is it not a positive statement, that there is uncaused existence?

Maybe, but you stated that the argument that there is no God was a positive statement or argument.

Is it or is it not a positive statement that an uncaused existence is not in need of any cause, such as a Creator or even the Natural Law?

All arguments for God are for the existence of God, existence being preresumed without argument.

It is a matter of belief, nothing can be presumed beyond that.

Existence is not in need of God, but God is in the need of proof of existence in said arguments!

Which arguments?!?!?!

Well, as a Christian I only need to show that I have sufficient reason for myself. I the need to hear why that reason is not or cannot be true. (1 Peter 3:15.)

This may be sufficient reason for you to believe, but beyond that it offers nothing of substance as an argument.

[37818]

Maybe, but you stated that the argument that there is no God was a positive statement or argument.

So are you saying a positive argument that there is something true which rules out there being a God is not a positive argument against there being a God?

It is a matter of belief, nothing can be presumed beyond that.

So you believe!

Which arguments?!?!?!

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, the moral argument, etc., they all, without exception, presume existence.

This may be sufficient reason for you to believe, but beyond that it offers nothing of substance as an argument.

So you are making the argument that beyond one's own reason's to believe, there can be no truth in what is believed? And therefore dismiss the other person's reason to believe without giving any reason, but to just merely dismissed it as false, merely as a belief. Which seems to be your practice.

[shunyadragon]

So are you saying a positive argument that there is something true which rules out there being a God is not a positive argument against there being a God?

So you believe!

Rewording does not help your case, because it is phony shell game. An argument that there is no God is a negative argument. I would like to see you present a logical hypothesis for logical argument for there being no God(s) that is not a negative argument. Nonetheless such an argument could not possible prove a negative. All the logical arguments for the existence of God make one or more premises that something exists that the conclusion determines it must be God.

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, the moral argument, etc., they all, without exception, presume existence.

True, unfortunately they are too circular to be meaningful.

So you are making the argument that beyond one's own reason's to believe, there can be no truth in what is believed? And therefore dismiss the other person's reason to believe without giving any reason, but to just merely dismissed it as false, merely as a belief. Which seems to be your practice.

No. I am dealing with your arguments specifically at this point. Your arguments so far assume your belief and that the scripture you cite is from God. Too circular to be meaningful outside those that believe as you do.

Nonetheless, I consider all arguments for or against the existence of God(s) futile and inconclusive.

[37818]

Rewording does not help your case, because it is phony shell game. An argument that there is no God is a negative argument. I would like to see you present a logical hypothesis for logical argument for there being no God(s) that is not a negative argument. Nonetheless such an argument could not possible prove a negative. All the logical arguments for the existence of God make one or more premises that something exists that the conclusion determines it must be God.

So a truth which negates a falsehood is not a positive proof against any falsehood. To merely state that something is a falsehood is a negative argument, is that not so?

True, unfortunately they are too circular to be meaningful.

What is your proof that, for example. the teological argument for a God is a circular argument. Present it. We will allow the presupposition of existence not negating the need for a God.

No. I am dealing with your arguments specifically at this point. Your arguments so far assume your belief and that the scripture you cite is from God. Too circular to be meaningful outside those that believe as you do.

Cite a belief of mine in question. Quote me. Give my reason or reasons given. Show your proof that it is circular.

Nonetheless, I consider all arguments for or against the existence of God(s) futile and inconclusive.

On the premise that there is no God. It stands to be true, in other words.

I have another question, do you agree or disagree truth is to be regarded as immutable? Or as they say "absolute?"

[shunyadragon]

So a truth which negates a falsehood is not a positive proof against any falsehood. To merely state that something is a falsehood is a negative argument, is that not so?

. . . and you cannot prove a falsehood.

What is your proof that, for example. the teleological argument for a God is a circular argument. Present it. We will allow the presupposition of existence not negating the need for a God.

You need to assume or define the cause of how you propose something is designed that would by a greater power and designer, before you propose the argument. You assume complexity needs a 'designer.' That makes it circular. The problem is there is no criteria that we can define something as designed or not designed in nature, and complexity does not necessitate a designer, unless you assume it in the beginning of the argument.

Cite a belief of mine in question. Quote me. Give my reason or reasons given. Show your proof that it is circular.

Been there done that several times for example when you cite scripture in your defense. You have to assume that the scripture is from God to support your argument.

On the premise that there is no God. It stands to be true, in other words.

I have another question, do you agree or disagree truth is to be regarded as immutable? Or as they say "absolute?"

Ultimately, yes, whether God exists or not, but not from the human perspective. If Natural Law is Divine Law, then God's 'Truth' is absolute. If no God exists, and Natural Law is the uncaused Cause of everything then the 'Truth' of Natural Law is absolute.

[37818]

. . . and you cannot prove a falsehood.

And if the falsehood is believed to be a truth? There are more false beliefs than true ones. Is that not the case?

You need to assume or define the cause of how you propose something is designed that would by a greater power and designer, before you propose the argument. You assume complexity needs a 'designer.' That makes it circular. The problem is there is no criteria that we can define something as designed or not designed in nature, and complexity does not necessitate a designer, unless you assume it in the beginning of the argument.

OK. Explaining it like that. Can we simplify this explanation any? It is true those who propose the teleological argument are coming from a point of view that already believes the proposed conclusion. That cannot be denied. Design, function giving purpose. Definitions being used. DNA is code, instructions, information, the very knowledge which builds life and is life. From our human perspective it fits our understanding of design and function. Does it not? If not how does it not?
Anyway I think this argument, as you presented it, to be a circular argument, needs simplification some how.

Been there done that several times for example when you cite scripture in your defense. You have to assume that the scripture is from God to support your argument.

That is one type of argument that I have made. To show what I believe as based on the written, called scripture, regarded to be the word of God. Now as for that written being the word of God, the implication being, it is therefore true. God being inerrant, and it being God's word.

But I also make other arguments. A starting premise that there is uncaused existence. What is my scriptural bases for that? I've have given it. But the thrust of the argument, is existence exists, an uncaused existence needs no God. What is my scripture for that? Do you know or remember? Understand, at issue is what is true and what is not true. My citing scriptures which are not received versus making arguments, not citing any scriptures.

On the premise that there is no God. It stands to be true, in other words.

Yes. And then my profession of knowing God personally would then be false.

Ultimately, yes, whether God exists or not, but not from the human perspective. If Natural Law is Divine Law, then God's 'Truth' is absolute. If no God exists, and Natural Law is the uncaused Cause of everything then the 'Truth' of Natural Law is absolute.

Then how do we recognize truth? There are many belief claims. One can be true [or Some of them can be true, embracing common truths] and all the rest to be false. Or all of them can be false.

How we know comes before what we know. So again, how do we recognize truth? The odds are we are going to be wrong.