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

[JimL]

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?

If you have been following me at all then you'd know that the only thing i'm denying is that any existence at all comes from nothing, which in turn denies the existence of a god who creates out of nothing. Denying god doesn't deny uncaused existence, it merely denies creation out of nothing.

[37818]

If you have been following me at all then you'd know that the only thing i'm denying is that any existence at all comes from nothing, which in turn denies the existence of a god who creates out of nothing. Denying god doesn't deny uncaused existence, it merely denies creation out of nothing.

Well nothing comes from nothing. So you hold what ever comes into being had to have had some previous existence. So there must have been another JimL. And there can be nothing original. Am I understanding your objection to creating something out of nothing?

[Jim B.]

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

It depends on how you mean 'cause'. If something, say the physical universe, has always been in existence, that fact alone would not answer the 'why'. Just because something is temporally infinite doesn't mean there's a sufficient reason for that thing.

Let's say, for example, that this is the only universe; no multi-verse. If so, then there's this one universe that has always been. But the universe could have been very different than this one is. In fact, a possibly infinite number of other universe could have possibly been, but in fact only one, this one, is. The fact that it exists doesn't answer the question of why this one possible universe, out of an infinite number of other possibilities, exists. If God is necessary, then he would not be brute the way a merely possible universe would be.

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

No, because God would not be just another 'uncaused thing.' God would entail his very reason for being. His essence would entail his existence. This couldn't be said of the material universe if it happened to be uncaused. Note: this doesn't 'prove' God exists. All it's saying is IF there's a God that's at all like the concept God, then necessity would be an essential trait.

[shunyadragon]

It depends on how you mean 'cause'. If something, say the physical universe, has always been in existence, that fact alone would not answer the 'why'. Just because something is temporally infinite doesn't mean there's a sufficient reason for that thing.

The natural physical existence of our universe and all possible universes simply exist based on natural laws and the nature of this physical existence need not answer the question 'why?,' because it would not have anthropomorphic qualities to answer questions.

Let's say, for example, that this is the only universe; no multi-verse. If so, then there's this one universe that has always been. But the universe could have been very different than this one is. In fact, a possibly infinite number of other universe could have possibly been, but in fact only one, this one, is. The fact that it exists doesn't answer the question of why this one possible universe, out of an infinite number of other possibilities, exists. If God is necessary, then he would not be brute the way a merely possible universe would be.

I question the bold. The 'why' here is hypothetical. The possible existence of a wide range universal constants, as an infinite? number of possibilities is only theoretically possible. It is also theoretically possible that there are a limited range of possible constant, and they all or most may result in possible universes in a possible multi-verse.

No, because God would not be just another 'uncaused thing.' God would entail his very reason for being. His essence would entail his existence. This couldn't be said of the material universe if it happened to be uncaused. Note: this doesn't 'prove' God exists. All it's saying is IF there's a God that's at all like the concept God, then necessity would be an essential trait.

If our physical existence is and 'uncaused thing' (though from the natural perspective it would not be uncaused, it would be 'caused' by natural laws and physical nature of our existence). This would entail the 'very natural reason for being' of the natural existence no more or less than the existence of God. Neither could be demonstrated, falsified, nor proved as being the source.

[37818]

Ultimately, there is an uncaused existence.

[shunyadragon]

Ultimately, there is an uncaused existence.

True, the cause is either God, or natural laws and physical nature of our existence.

[shunyadragon]

Well nothing comes from nothing. So you hold what ever comes into being had to have had some previous existence. So there must have been another JimL. And there can be nothing original. Am I understanding your objection to creating something out of nothing?

It remains a possibility that the 'another' uncaused 'source' is simply natural laws and nature of our physical existence.

[JimL]

It depends on how you mean 'cause'. If something, say the physical universe, has always been in existence, that fact alone would not answer the 'why'. Just because something is temporally infinite doesn't mean there's a sufficient reason for that thing.

Let's say, for example, that this is the only universe; no multi-verse. If so, then there's this one universe that has always been. But the universe could have been very different than this one is. In fact, a possibly infinite number of other universe could have possibly been, but in fact only one, this one, is. The fact that it exists doesn't answer the question of why this one possible universe, out of an infinite number of other possibilities, exists. If God is necessary, then he would not be brute the way a merely possible universe would be.

I don't think that makes sense Jim. There is no "why" when it comes to necessary existence, whether it be god or the natural world, thats why they call it "necessary."

No, because God would not be just another 'uncaused thing.' God would entail his very reason for being. His essence would entail his existence. This couldn't be said of the material universe if it happened to be uncaused. Note: this doesn't 'prove' God exists. All it's saying is IF there's a God that's at all like the concept God, then necessity would be an essential trait.

See above, necessity would be an essential trait of any existence that is necessary.

[robrecht]

The need/desire/intuition for meaning, a sense of the ultimate rationality of the universe, is a foundational premise upon which most or all proofs for the existence of God are based. This metaphysical premise is a pretty good one, I think, but it is not shared by all. One can also believe that the universe is ultimately meaningless or absurd, apart from any meaning that we ourselves construct for ourselves. These two views need not be that far apart. They can be unified, for example, in an immanent, incarnational theology whereby God becomes human/creation in order that humanity/creation might become God. Divinization, theosis reveals the fundamentally good nature of all reality.

[shunyadragon]

The need/desire/intuition for meaning, a sense of the ultimate rationality of the universe, is a foundational premise upon which most or all proofs for the existence of God are based. This metaphysical premise is a pretty good one, I think, but it is not shared by all.

I for one do not share this premise. It is an egocentric premise that is unfortunately used to justify ones own belief from among a conflicting diverse reality of human belief systems, which results in too many unsound arguments, begging the question. Factors like one's culture, upbringing, and the desire for a 'Sense of Belonging,' weigh to heavily on one's choices to make this a valid foundational premise. Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs reflects the problem of these motivations. The human goal should be to seek detachment from one's needs and desires with the goal of 'Self Actualization.' I believe that Buddha was confronted with this absurdity in his 'awakening.'

I believe it is very apparent that metaphysical desire to resolve ones needs and desires is anchored in the underlying desire for a 'Sense of Belonging, and Self-Esteem.'

One can also believe that the universe is ultimately meaningless or absurd, apart from any meaning that we ourselves construct for ourselves. These two views need not be that far apart.

The belief that the 'universe is ultimately meaningless or absurd' is more a negative accusation than the reality of what people believe, except maybe if one is a hard core anarchist. Philosophical Naturalists in reality simply believe the purpose and 'why?' of our physical existence is natural, and not defined by human vanities and desires.

If you follow the dialogue here you will find that Jim B, a theist, and JimL, an agnostic, will emphasize opposing views in negative terms, and that is a problem when one assumes an egocentric perspective of justifying one's belief based on the desire and need for what one wants to believe.

They can be unified, for example, in an immanent, incarnational theology whereby God becomes human/creation in order that humanity/creation might become God. Divinization, theosis reveals the fundamentally good nature of all reality.

I do not believe they can be unified. It is best face reality and drop both, and realize the nature of our existence simply exists, and the nature of God is not good, nor otherwise. God is simply God and cannot be defined by the human desire and need to justify one's belief. The belief that God is in some way necessarily God is an anthropomorphic desire to mold God in ones own image.

I believe the above is too anthropomorphic, and resembles pantheism/panentheism. I believe that Creation reflects the natural attributes and nature of God, and cannot 'become God,' neither does God become human/creation.

[robrecht]

I for one do not share this premise. It is an egocentric premise that is unfortunately used to justify ones own belief from among a conflicting diverse reality of human belief systems, which results in too many unsound arguments, begging the question.

It need not be employed in an egocentric manner. And, when used philosophically, there is indeed an attempt to relativize cultural and religious influences. Recall that I endorse philosophical theism, whereas you tend to identify theism with religious beliefs.

Factors like one's culture, upbringing, and the desire for a 'Sense of Belonging,' weigh to heavily on one's choices to make this a valid foundational premise. Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs reflects the problem of these motivations. The human goal should be to seek detachment from one's needs and desires with the goal of 'Self Actualization.' I believe that Buddha was confronted with this absurdity in his 'awakening.'

I believe it is very apparent that metaphysical desire to resolve ones needs and desires is anchored in the underlying desire for a 'Sense of Belonging, and Self-Esteem.'

Projecting emotions behind the positions of others is merely an ad hominem argument.

The belief that the 'universe is ultimately meaningless or absurd' is more a negative accusation than the reality of what people believe, except maybe if one is a hard core anarchist. Philosophical Naturalists in reality simply believe the purpose and 'why?' of our physical existence is natural, and not defined by human vanities and desires.

If you follow the dialogue here you will find that Jim B, a theist, and JimL, an agnostic, will emphasize opposing views in negative terms, and that is a problem when one assumes an egocentric perspective of justifying one's belief based on the desire and need for what one wants to believe.

Note that I did not use these terms in a negative or accusatory fashion, but rather also spoke of the construction of meaning, which also need not be done in an egocentric manner.

I do not believe they can be unified. It is best face reality and drop both, and realize the nature of our existence simply exists, and the nature of God is not good, nor otherwise. God is simply God and cannot be defined by the human desire and need to justify one's belief. The belief that God is in some way necessarily God is an anthropomorphic desire to mold God in ones own image.

Recall that I, like Thomas Aquinas, do not think that God can or should be defined. Also, examine your own use of 'best' when critiquing the use of the term 'good'.

I believe the above is too anthropomorphic, and resembles pantheism/panentheism. I believe that Creation reflects the natural attributes and nature of God, and cannot 'become God,' neither does God become human/creation.

The fact that it resembles pantheism/panentheism should be proof enough for you that it need not be seen as merely or overly anthropomorphic. When trying to speak of God, it is frequently necessary or useful to use analogoical and metaphorical language. You yourself, for example, claim to believe that God is Love.

[shunyadragon]

Note that I did not use these terms in a negative or accusatory fashion, but rather also spoke of the construction of meaning, which also need not be done in an egocentric manner.

Please note that I was not referring to you, but examples of the classic arguments between many theists and atheist/agnostic believers here.

Recall that I, like Thomas Aquinas, do not think that God can or should be defined. Also, examine your own use of 'best' when critiquing the use of the term 'good'.

My use of 'best' here was from my limited perspective of the best way to view the question of the nature of God described as 'good,' and not all related to how God should be considered in these terms. It remains, that I consider the human view of 'God is good' to be a very anthropomorphic defining God in terms of human value choices.

[robrecht]

Please note that I was not referring to you, but examples of the classic arguments between many theists and atheist/agnostic believers here.

My use of 'best' here was from my limited perspective of the best way to view the question of the nature of God described as 'good,' and not all related to how God should be considered in these terms. It remains, that I consider the human view of 'God is good' to be a very anthropomorphic defining God in terms of human value choices.

But don't you think our limited human perspectives of what is 'good' and 'loving' and 'just' can be employed in in an analogical or metaphorical manner when speaking of God, otherwise, how can you yourself say that 'God is Love'?

[37818]

It remains a possibility that the 'another' uncaused 'source' is simply natural laws and nature of our physical existence.

True, the cause is either God, or natural laws and physical nature of our existence.

An uncaused cause or source, whatever it might be, is different than uncaused existence itself. There has to be an existence inorder for to be a cause or source whether caused or uncaused.

Just as there are things in space (a type of existence), those things are not the space that (existence that) they are in. A chair in a house is not the house.

A cause or source (caused or uncaused) are something else than existence.

There has to be an uncaused existence before there can be anything else.

[shunyadragon]

An uncaused cause or source, whatever it might be, is different than uncaused existence itself. There has to be an existence inorder for to be a cause or source whether caused or uncaused.

Just as there are things in space (a type of existence), those things are not the space that (existence that) they are in. A chair in a house is not the house.

A cause or source (caused or uncaused) are something else than existence.

There has to be an uncaused existence before there can be anything else.

Regardless of assertions, it remains a possibility that this uncaused existence is natural caused by natural laws.

It remains without falsification nor logical proof that anything exists beyond or physical existence that is an 'uncaused cause' other than Natural Laws.