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

[JimL]

The question as I see it is "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?" not "How is there something rather than nothing at all?" Even if we can't imagine nothingness or scientifically isolate and observe nothingness and then observe the process of how things that exist emerge from that nothingness, does it still make sense to wonder "Why?"? Is God the only true answer to that question? Some would say that if so, then it's not a legitimate question because the answer is already implicit in the question. But I don't think that God is the only possible answer to this question...

Curious, other than god being the answer, what other possible answers to this question do you have in mind? The reason I ask is because my understanding of nothing is absolute non-existence, no vacuum, no substance/energy, no forces, no nothing, and I can see no logical explanation as to how that definition of nothing could be the cause of anything. Nothingness is a difficult concept to even imagine, and that may be due to the fact that existence is infinite, that nothingness is a false concept, that there is no such thing as nothingness, and that makes more sense to me, than the idea that something/the world came from nothing.

[shunyadragon]

No sarcasm intended. It just doesn't seem to be the kind of question that you find interesting. We all have different interests. Why would you assume that to be a sarcastic remark? It's no reflection on intellectual capacity at all, if that's what you thought I meant. Russell didn't find it to be a very interesting question either and he was a genius, imho.

I do not believe there ever was a question of intellectual capacity. In this response I may have misunderstood your first comment.

[Jim B.]

Curious, other than god being the answer, what other possible answers to this question do you have in mind? The reason I ask is because my understanding of nothing is absolute non-existence, no vacuum, no substance/energy, no forces, no nothing, and I can see no logical explanation as to how that definition of nothing could be the cause of anything. Nothingness is a difficult concept to even imagine, and that may be due to the fact that existence is infinite, that nothingness is a false concept, that there is no such thing as nothingness, and that makes more sense to me, than the idea that something/the world came from nothing.

Right. There is no such thing as nothingness by definition, nothingness being no thing. Nothingness is not a putative state of affairs. So the question cannot be "How could there be this state called 'nothingness' and then stuff arise out of it?" The question isn't asking for a process whereby things popped into being. It's more asking for a sufficient reason. Is there a reason why there is a world? Perhaps because, as you say, nothingness is a false or self-contradictory concept, or that "being has to be. It cannot not be." In either case, we have to go beyond phenomena and think about logic and/or metaphysics. There is also a 'value-theory' of existence (I'll have to look up the reference). There was a book once titled "The World Exists Because It Should." You can think of being as a good thing in that sense, but then many things that should be are not, so I'm not sure if that theory holds...

[JimL]

Right. There is no such thing as nothingness by definition, nothingness being no thing. Nothingness is not a putative state of affairs. So the question cannot be "How could there be this state called 'nothingness' and then stuff arise out of it?" The question isn't asking for a process whereby things popped into being. It's more asking for a sufficient reason. Is there a reason why there is a world? Perhaps because, as you say, nothingness is a false or self-contradictory concept, or that "being has to be. It cannot not be." In either case, we have to go beyond phenomena and think about logic and/or metaphysics. There is also a 'value-theory' of existence (I'll have to look up the reference). There was a book once titled "The World Exists Because It Should." You can think of being as a good thing in that sense, but then many things that should be are not, so I'm not sure if that theory holds...

I don't think that we need to think of existence, or what some would call being, as either good or bad. Values, I think, are those things that are either good or bad because they are either in the best interests of human society, or they are not. Being murdered for instance is not in the best interests of anyone, therefore a society in which murder is considered an immoral act, and against the law, is good, or in the best interests of all within that society.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that we need to think of existence, or what some would call being, as either good or bad. Values, I think, are those things that are either good or bad because they are either in the best interests of human society, or they are not. Being murdered for instance is not in the best interests of anyone, therefore a society in which murder is considered an immoral act, and against the law, is good, or in the best interests of all within that society.

IF there is a God, God is not a good God nor a bad God, God would simply be God beyond human judgement of good or bad.

[Jim B.]

I don't think that we need to think of existence, or what some would call being, as either good or bad. Values, I think, are those things that are either good or bad because they are either in the best interests of human society, or they are not. Being murdered for instance is not in the best interests of anyone, therefore a society in which murder is considered an immoral act, and against the law, is good, or in the best interests of all within that society.

This was just one theory of why there are existents. I'm not even that familiar with it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2000936...n_tab_contents

Would you say that it's nonsense to wonder why there's anything at all?

To address your point about metaethics: non-existence as a deprivation would be bad. IOW, if somebody murders me (assuming I am innocent and don't deserve to be murdered), even if it's painlessly, then I've been deprived of my life, so even if I no longer exist, it's still a bad thing for me. Also, it's easy to imagine scenarios where murdering someone would bein the best interests of society. You can look at it either way: murder is wrong because it is not in the best interest of society, or it's not in the best interest of anyone because it is wrong. This is the consequentialist/deontological debate. Maybe this is the wrong thread for that.

[Jim B.]

IF there is a God, God is not a good God nor a bad God, God would simply be God beyond human judgement of good or bad.

How do we know that? Can we know nothing about God?

[shunyadragon]

This was just one theory of why there are existents. I'm not even that familiar with it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2000936...n_tab_contents

Would you say that it's nonsense to wonder why there's anything at all?

To address your point about metaethics: non-existence as a deprivation would be bad. IOW, if somebody murders me (assuming I am innocent and don't deserve to be murdered), even if it's painlessly, then I've been deprived of my life, so even if I no longer exist, it's still a bad thing for me. Also, it's easy to imagine scenarios where murdering someone would bein the best interests of society. You can look at it either way: murder is wrong because it is not in the best interest of society, or it's not in the best interest of anyone because it is wrong. This is the consequentialist/deontological debate. Maybe this is the wrong thread for that.

I review this article referenced and found it 'nothing new' in the arguments for the existence of God. same arguments, but in some cases odd and different wording.

[JimL]

This was just one theory of why there are existents. I'm not even that familiar with it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2000936...n_tab_contents

Would you say that it's nonsense to wonder why there's anything at all?

Would it be nonsense for god to wonder why he exists? I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but the most reasonable answer to the question, it seems to me, is that existence is, because existence is the natural state of affairs, its a brute fact, just as you would argue that god exists, because god existing is just a brute fact.

To address your point about metaethics: non-existence as a deprivation would be bad. IOW, if somebody murders me (assuming I am innocent and don't deserve to be murdered), even if it's painlessly, then I've been deprived of my life, so even if I no longer exist, it's still a bad thing for me. Also, it's easy to imagine scenarios where murdering someone would bein the best interests of society. You can look at it either way: murder is wrong because it is not in the best interest of society, or it's not in the best interest of anyone because it is wrong. This is the consequentialist/deontological debate. Maybe this is the wrong thread for that.

For the individual, being murdered would be a bad thing, assuming his existence is for himself a good thing, which is why many civilized countries have banned the death penalty. To murder an individual is to violate the "golden rule". The argument can be made, and is made, that murdering an individual is in the best interests of society, but that argument is not necessarily correct.

[37818]

Would it be nonsense for god to wonder why he exists? I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but the most reasonable answer to the question, it seems to me, is that existence is, because existence is the natural state of affairs, its a brute fact, just as you would argue that god exists, because god existing is just a brute fact.

And God having the identiy of the self existent uncaused existence.

[Jim B.]

I review this article referenced and found it 'nothing new' in the arguments for the existence of God. same arguments, but in some cases odd and different wording.

Did you read it? Where did you find it? I wasn't aware that it was an argument for the existence of God. I thought it was an argument for the existence of the world based on value. JimL asked what other possible arguments other than theistic ones could there be. This was one I cited. The depth of being was another.

[Jim B.]

Would it be nonsense for god to wonder why he exists? I don't mean to answer a question with a question, but the most reasonable answer to the question, it seems to me, is that existence is, because existence is the natural state of affairs, its a brute fact, just as you would argue that god exists, because god existing is just a brute fact.

I don't think it would be nonsense, just perhaps unnecessary. If God has aseity, then he is not a brute fact. His necessity is contained in the concept of God (in the Abrahamic religions over the past more than 2 millennia, but I would say in many South and East Asian religions as well.) The world is not normally understood as possessing aseity. So the world, without any other explanation or reason for its existence, would exist brutely in a way that God, under the above description, would not. God is understood as necessary in a way that the world is not.

For the individual, being murdered would be a bad thing, assuming his existence is for himself a good thing, which is why many civilized countries have banned the death penalty. To murder an individual is to violate the "golden rule". The argument can be made, and is made, that murdering an individual is in the best interests of society, but that argument is not necessarily correct.

I tend to think of it more in terms of rights and obligations, but this is kind of off-topic anyway.

[JimL]

And God having the identiy of the self existent uncaused existence.

I don't think that bald assertions add anything to the discussion 37818.

[JimL]

I don't think it would be nonsense, just perhaps unnecessary.

The same could be said of any uncaused existence, whether it be an immaterial god, or the material world.

If God has aseity, then he is not a brute fact. His necessity is contained in the concept of God

Well, no matter how you slice it, anything that is uncaused is still a brute fact.

(in the Abrahamic religions over the past more than 2 millennia, but I would say in many South and East Asian religions as well.) The world is not normally understood as possessing aseity. So the world, without any other explanation or reason for its existence, would exist brutely in a way that God, under the above description, would not. God is understood as necessary in a way that the world is not.

Well of course that is how the religious world would look at it, but i think it amounts to the same thing whether it is god or the universe that is uncaused.

[37818]

I don't think that bald assertions add anything to the discussion 37818.

Why? Is it you deny that there is uncaused existence or that it is the only thing that would be self existent? Or is it you cannot tolerate an identity for God where to deny God is to deny that there is uncaused existence?