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

[shunyadragon]

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'?

Actually no, It is too simplistic and anthropomorphic to define God in such terms. Use of 'good' has too many connotation of what is good, bad or evil from the human perspective. I believe we can experience the attributes of God in human terms such as love, compassion, and justice, but we cannot define God in these terms. You have to remember I believe n an apophatic view of God where God cannot be defined if positive terms, such as God is . . .

Nonetheless, the metaphysical premise that human needs and desire are meaningful is more than questionable as outlined in my previous post. The result is that fallible humans justify many diverse conflicting beliefs based on their culture, up bringing and a desire for a 'sense of belonging.'

[robrecht]

Actually no, It is too simplistic and anthropomorphic to define God in such terms. Use of 'good' has too many connotation of what is good, bad or evil from the human perspective. I believe we can experience the attributes of God in human terms such as love, compassion, and justice, but we cannot define God in these terms. You have to remember I believe n an apophatic view of God where God cannot be defined if positive terms, such as God is . . .

But I am not talking about defining God, merely speaking of God in an analogical or metaphorical manner. How is it you can speak of 'experiencing the attributes of God in human terms such as love, compassion, and justice', without also speaking of him in terms of 'goodness'? Are not love, compassion, and justice all 'good'?

Nonetheless, the metaphysical premise that human needs and desire are meaningful is more than questionable as outlined in my previous post. The result is that fallible humans justify many diverse conflicting beliefs based on their culture, up bringing and a desire for a 'sense of belonging.'

Of course, all metaphysical premises are questionable. That's why I only said it was a pretty good one, but not one shared by all.

[Jim B.]

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.

Why are the laws as they are? We can ask questions of things without those things being capable of answering the way a person would. We can ask "Why is the window broken?" We could find out the answer was hail. An answer to a "why?" would not necessarily be anthropomorphic. The nature of being is a possible answer to the "why?" and that is not particularly anthropomorphic.

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.

I was setting up a hypothetical. But if there is only a finite set of possibilities, then something is constraining the space of possibilities. Bruteness would not address why there is this finite set or why there are constraints on that set.

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.

I'm not trying to 'prove' God, if that were even possible, but merely trying to lay out the different possible positions. How could the "physical nature of our existence" cause our existence? That sounds more Platonic than you might have intended. This is not about falsification, demonstration or proof. It's about trying to understand different kinds of explanations.

[Jim B.]

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."

What I'm saying is that necessary existence would not apply to the material world. It applies to God. The concept of God standardly employed in the West is that it contains the answer to its own "why?" Physical existence does not contain that answer, which is why it must be taken as brute or as explained by something else, eg being, God, value, etc. For physical existence, there's either no answer to "why" or an answer outside of it.

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

There's nothing in the concept of physical existence that entails necessity. If it's conceivable that the physical world could be different than it is, then it's not necessary.

[37818]

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

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

What ever is uncaused is not caused by anything.

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

Existence and cause are two different things. A cause in contingent on having an existence.

[shunyadragon]

What ever is uncaused is not caused by anything.

Ok, I agree, but it is possible that Natural Law is not caused by anything.

[quote] Existence and cause are two different things. [quote]

Ok, so what?!?!?!

A cause in contingent on having an existence.

Not clear here, check your wording. It remains a possibility that Natural Law is the uncaused cause of our physical existence, and not contingent on anything.

[JimL]

What I'm saying is that necessary existence would not apply to the material world. It applies to God. The concept of God standardly employed in the West is that it contains the answer to its own "why?" Physical existence does not contain that answer, which is why it must be taken as brute or as explained by something else, eg being, God, value, etc. For physical existence, there's either no answer to "why" or an answer outside of it.

Afaics, there is no answer to "the why" question no matter what it is that is necessary existence.

There's nothing in the concept of physical existence that entails necessity. If it's conceivable that the physical world could be different than it is, then it's not necessary.

I'm not seeing the need for the distinction that you are making. Its just as concievable that god could be different than the natural world could be. The point is that whichever it is that is necessary, whether god or the natural world, they are what they are due to necessity, i.e they are uncaused.

[shunyadragon]

Why are the laws as they are?

Not resolved yet by science, and of course, science nor the simple nature of our existence cannot answer the why? questions.

We can ask questions of things without those things being capable of answering the way a person would.

We can ask "Why is the window broken?" We could find out the answer was hail. An answer to a "why?" would not necessarily be anthropomorphic. The nature of being is a possible answer to the "why?" and that is not particularly anthropomorphic.

Trivial questions, and well, ah . . . the way the questions were worded the descriptive qualities and answers expected had an anthropomorphic slant.

I was setting up a hypothetical. But if there is only a finite set of possibilities, then something is constraining the space of possibilities. Bruteness would not address why there is this finite set or why there are constraints on that set.

It was not presented as a hypothetical, and you presented it as if a fact. From the perspective of the simple natural perspective there are no known limit as to whether it is a finite set nor infinite set of possibilities. It is simply possible by Natural Law could very well be the determiner of the constraints on the possible range of the universal constants as it is the constraints in our universe.

I'm not trying to 'prove' God, if that were even possible, but merely trying to lay out the different possible positions. How could the "physical nature of our existence" cause our existence? That sounds more Platonic than you might have intended. This is not about falsification, demonstration or proof. It's about trying to understand different kinds of explanations.

I am addressing possible alternatives in a positive matter that you are not considering.

You left out an important part of my citation in the above quote. I said that; 'it would be 'caused' by natural laws and physical nature of our existence.' Proper citation would help the discussion. I DID NOT say "physical nature of our existence" cause our existence.

[shunyadragon]

But I am not talking about defining God, merely speaking of God in an analogical or metaphorical manner. How is it you can speak of 'experiencing the attributes of God in human terms such as love, compassion, and justice', without also speaking of him in terms of 'goodness'? Are not love, compassion, and justice all 'good'?

Experiencing the attributes of God through prayer, meditation, scripture, and Laws of God is not the same as defining 'God is . . . this, that or the other, and ah, the Trinity.

I do believe that saying God is . . ., is defining God. Take it as a difference in understanding if it is difficult for you to accept.

Simply, no, love compassion and justice from the human perspective are not ALL good! They can be selfish, arbitrary, and self-serving for egocentric purposes.

Of course, all metaphysical premises are questionable. That's why I only said it was a pretty good one, but not one shared by all.

. . . and I explained why I do not share it.

[robrecht]

Experiencing the attributes of God through prayer, meditation, scripture, and Laws of God is not the same as defining 'God is . . . this, that or the other, and ah, the Trinity.

I do believe that saying God is . . ., is defining God. Take it as a difference in understanding if it is difficult for you to accept.

It is rather a matter of your trying to say that I am defining God despite the fact that I do not believe God can or should be defined. You are the one who is not accepting what I have clearly said. God can not nor should be defined.

Here, for example, you say, "In the Baha'i Faith you would [NOT?] define; 'God is Love,' but you would describe Love as an attribute of God." How is that different than what I have said? If it is not different, you may merely be arguing out of habit without substance.

Simply, no, love compassion and justice from the human perspective are not ALL good! They can be selfish, arbitrary, and self-serving for egocentric purposes.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that we are speaking of God, not of arbitrary human selfishness and self-serving egocentricity. It is you yourself who speak here of the nature of God as one and the attributes of God being Love, Compassion, and Justice. Why can't you speak of Goodness as an attribute of God?

. . . and I explained why I do not share it.

So we both agree that it is a premise and that it is questionable. Nonetheless, I still believe it is a pretty good (though questionable) premise, as far as premises go. Do you think it is a bad premise? Is it not the very foundation of all scientific exploration?

[shunyadragon]

It is rather a matter of your trying to say that I am defining God despite the fact that I do not believe God can or should be defined. You are the one who is not accepting what I have clearly said. God can not nor should be defined.

Ok, but no I do not accept the wording used here. We have to consider it unresolvable. Even though you apparently do acknowledge apophatic attributes of God as 'should not be defined,' I believe the dominant view of Christianity is to define God as Trinitarian apart from other beliefs like Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. This is a long running, and apparently unresolvable disagreement.

Here, for example, you say, "In the Baha'i Faith you would [NOT?] define; 'God is Love,' but you would describe Love as an attribute of God." How is that different than what I have said? If it is not different, you may merely be arguing out of habit without substance.

As far as I am concerned I have answered your question. No. I do not abide by your mindless accusation such as; you may merely be arguing out of habit without substance., and fail to just accept we disagree. Insults get you nowhere now here.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that we are speaking of God, not of arbitrary human selfishness and self-serving egocentricity. It is you yourself who speak here of the nature of God as one and the attributes of God being Love, Compassion, and Justice. Why can't you speak of Goodness as an attribute of God?

No I am not 'ignoring the fact that we are speaking of God, not of arbitrary human selfishness and self-serving egocentricity.' I consider the human view problematic defining God is good, God is Love

I question the human perspective of the judgement as to what is good. You perspective may be ok, I do not know, but as far as fallible human judgement from the perspective of different religions and churches they would not accept the concept of God of 'other' belief systems. There for statements of what God is . . ., is too inconsistent, and it remains the case that they define what is 'good' differently.

So we both agree that it is a premise and that it is questionable. Nonetheless, I still believe it is a pretty good (though questionable) premise, as far as premises go. Do you think it is a bad premise?

I consider it a bad premise.

Is it not the very foundation of all scientific exploration?

No, the very foundation of science is the assumption of uniformity of our physical existence.

[robrecht]

Ok, but no I do not accept the wording used here. We have to consider it unresolvable. Even though you apparently do acknowledge apophatic attributes of God as 'should not be defined,' I believe the dominant view of Christianity is to define God as Trinitarian apart from other beliefs like Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. This is a long running, and apparently unresolvable disagreement.

Unresolvable only because you insist on defining the views of others other than they themselves believe. For example, you "believe the dominant view of Christianity is to define God as ...", but I have shown you explicitly that in the mainstream Catholic Thomistic tradition, it is clearly held that God cannot be defined. The Trinity is not a definition of God.

As far as I am concerned I have answered your question. No. I do not abide by your mindless accusation such as; you may merely be arguing out of habit without substance., and fail to just accept we disagree. Insults get you nowhere now here.

It is neither an accusation or insult, but follows an important conditional clause. I can certainly accept that we disagree, but you have not explained exactly how you disagree. You seem to be saying that you believe I am defining God because "saying God is . . ., is defining God." So I pointed out where you yourself said, "In the Baha'i Faith you would define; 'God is Love,' ...". I suspected you misspoke there and actually meant to say, "In the Baha'i Faith you would [NOT???] define; 'God is Love,' but you would describe Love as an attribute of God." Did you misspeak there? You have not answered that question. If so, then the nature of our disagreement may relate to 'my' critique of considering the attributes of God as reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations. We started to discuss this previously with reference to your belief that matter is an attribute of God.

No I am not 'ignoring the fact that we are speaking of God, not of arbitrary human selfishness and self-serving egocentricity.' I consider the human view problematic defining God is good, God is Love

Saying 'God is love' is certainly not a definition of God in the classical sense of what constitutes a definition.

I question the human perspective of the judgement as to what is good. You perspective may be ok, I do not know, but as far as fallible human judgement from the perspective of different religions and churches they would not accept the concept of God of 'other' belief systems. There for statements of what God is . . ., is too inconsistent, and it remains the case that they define what is 'good' differently.

But the same can be said of the human perspective and judgment of what is 'love', 'compassion', 'justice', and 'one'. Is there any reason to single out 'good' as an inappropriate expression for (clearly acknowledged as limited) human language about God? Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God?

I consider it a bad premise.

No, the very foundation of science is the assumption of uniformity of our physical existence.

Uniformly open to rational investigation.

[shunyadragon]

Unresolvable only because you insist on defining the views of others other than they themselves believe. For example, you "believe the dominant view of Christianity is to define God as ...", but I have shown you explicitly that in the mainstream Catholic Thomistic tradition, it is clearly held that God cannot be defined. The Trinity is not a definition of God.

Claim what you want as Thomistic tradition, but we disagree what is understood when one says; God is . . . I believe in simply plan English when one describes X is Y (noun), X is defining specific aspects of Y. Further discussion would apparently be fruitless.

It is neither an accusation or insult, but follows an important conditional clause.

Let's call it a conditional clause insult.

I can certainly accept that we disagree, but you have not explained exactly how you disagree. You seem to be saying that you believe I am defining God because "saying God is . . ., is defining God."

Yes, I do.

So I pointed out where you yourself said, "In the Baha'i Faith you would define; 'God is Love,' ...". I suspected you misspoke there and actually meant to say, "In the Baha'i Faith you would [NOT???] define; 'God is Love,' but you would describe Love as an attribute of God." Did you misspeak there? You have not answered that question. If so, then the nature of our disagreement may relate to 'my' critique of considering the attributes of God as reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations. We started to discuss this previously with reference to your belief that matter is an attribute of God.

It is possible I misspoke, In the Baha'i Faith nor my view is not defined as 'God is Love.' No where in the Baha'i writings is God describe as God is love, nor God is good.

Describing things as attributes of God does not define God specifically as God is X, Y orZ.

Saying 'God is love' is certainly not a definition of God in the classical sense of what constitutes a definition.

I believe in classical English the use of 'is' specifically defines the object.

The problem is compounded with simplistic statements 'God is good,' runs into many problems, first is how you define 'good,' and than there is the contorted 'argument from evil.' Brian Davies and other theologians and philosophers write extensive complex essays on this, and from my perspective it is not worth the effort.

I go with the simple; What is God? God is . . .

[robrecht]

Claim what you want as Thomistic tradition, but we disagree what is understood when one says; God is . . . I believe in simply plan English when one describes X is Y (noun), X is defining specific aspects of Y. Further discussion would apparently be fruitless.

Unless you want to understand Thomas' fundametally apophatic theological methodology whereby all language about God is merely analogical.

Let's call it a conditional clause insult.

Call it whatever you want, the condition was asking you to clarify how you supposedly disagreed. Now we know that you misspoke, even if you are loathe to admit it.

Yes, I do.

You're mistaken about that, apparently because you choose not to recognize analogical or metaphorical language about God when it is used by those whom you would rather criticize from your religious polemical perspective.

It is possible I misspoke, In the Baha'i Faith nor my view is not defined as 'God is Love.' No where in the Baha'i writings is God describe as God is love, nor God is good.

Obviously, and as I suspected, you mispoke for you are now saying the exact opposite of what you said before. Why not just admit it plainly?

Describing things as attributes of God does not define God specifically as God is X, Y orZ.

So, how about trying to answer the question and address the issue directly: Would you say 'love', 'compassion', and 'justice' are attributes of God, but 'goodness' is not an attribute of God? Do you believe that the attributes of God are reified infinite, co-eternal neo-Platonic emanations of God? We started to discuss this previously with reference to your belief that matter is an attribute of God. This was the previous discussion in which you mispoke about your belief that God is Love, which you have now retracted.

I believe in classical English the use of 'is' specifically defines the object.

Overly literalist interpretation when applied to poetic language of scripture or Thomas' theological method.

I agree that there is no need to address the philosophical problem or theological mystery of evil here.

[Jim B.]

Not resolved yet by science, and of course, science nor the simple nature of our existence cannot answer the why? questions.

But whatever science finds, assuming it does find it, to explain how these particular laws came to be, it would have to appeal to some other set of constraints, and those depending upon some other set and so on. The question would just be pushed back one step without really being explained. This is one reason why this is most likely not a scientific question.

Trivial questions, and well, ah . . . the way the questions were worded the descriptive qualities and answers expected had an anthropomorphic slant.

First off, the example was meant as an analogy of a "why?" question being answered non-anthropormorphically. Secondly, I've already suggested a non-anthropomorphic answer to the question. And thirdly, God could 'ground' existence without being anthropomorphic.

It was not presented as a hypothetical, and you presented it as if a fact. From the perspective of the simple natural perspective there are no known limit as to whether it is a finite set nor infinite set of possibilities. It is simply possible by Natural Law could very well be the determiner of the constraints on the possible range of the universal constants as it is the constraints in our universe.

Here's what I wrote at the top of the paragraph:

Let's say, for example, that this is the only possible universe; no multi-verse. If so,...

...then everything that follows in that paragraph hinges on (is contingent upon) that contingent. That's the way paragraphs work.

I am addressing possible alternatives in a positive matter that you are not considering.

I am happy to consider it if you can explain it at all coherently. Please explain how physical existence could be explained or 'caused' by natural laws and the physical nature of our existence. Are you saying that these laws and this nature 'exist' somehow independently of physical existence? How? They would have to in some sense in order to cause physical existence. And how would they have any causal power? And even if you could explain these things, you'd still have to propose a coherent possible explanation for the existence of these laws and this nature.

This thread is considering the question: Why is there something rather than nothing at all? You yourself have written that science isn't in the business of answering "Why?" questions. So why not say existence, or whatever caused it, is simply a brute fact not in need of further explanation rather than obfuscate using these occult entities that would not answer the question even if they could be rendered even remotely coherently?

You left out an important part of my citation in the above quote. I said that; 'it would be 'caused' by natural laws and physical nature of our existence.' Proper citation would help the discussion. I DID NOT say "physical nature of our existence" cause our existence.

So you're saying that the two in conjunction would 'cause' physical existence? How could the nature of our physical existence contribute, either alone or together with other things, to the cause of physical existence when that existence is already pre-supposed in that nature?