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

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Because all of its observed parts have non-necessary existence.

When has it been observed that spacetime has non-necessary existence?

[hansgeorg]

This logic fails by modern math and the simplicity of infinities in time and space. First time does not have units of time nor space, therefore any limits we put on space and time are meaningless. These are Creations of human conventions.The simplicity of infinity is that there is always something in time and space beyond any concept of time and space we can imagine or calculate.

Again Lucretius got it right in simplicity as the arrow of time and space pierces all finite boundaries of human imagination and convention.

See this discussion:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ogists/page130

[shunyadragon]

Because all of its observed parts have non-necessary existence.

non sequitur - the conclusion does not necessary follow.

This cannot negate the possibility that our physical existence can have a necessity of existence, even if the observed parts have a non-necessary existence.

[shunyadragon]

See this discussion:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ogists/page130

You will need to be more specific here the discussion does not make your objection clear.

[hansgeorg]

When has it been observed that spacetime has non-necessary existence?

Space time itself?

That is not an observed part of the universe.

Each time has a non-necessary existence, since there was a time when it was not yet and comes a time when it is gone.

Most physical places have non-necessary existence and observably so. Krakatoa was not before a certain eruption. Parts of California are threatened by drowning.

As to "space time", it is a deuction, not an observed part.

[hansgeorg]

non sequitur - the conclusion does not necessary follow.

This cannot negate the possibility that our physical existence can have a necessity of existence, even if the observed parts have a non-necessary existence.

Its like saying that all of a thing can be blue when none of its parts is in any respect blue.

[hansgeorg]

You will need to be more specific here the discussion does not make your objection clear.

I was clear enough there, and will reply to your inclarity there.

[shunyadragon]

Its like saying that all of a thing can be blue when none of its parts is in any respect blue.

This is true, but remains a non sequitur.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Space time itself?

That is not an observed part of the universe.

Seriously? Spacetime hasn't been observed? I mean, I could understand a debate regarding the properties of spacetime, but to claim that space and time are not observed parts of the universe seems fairly disingenuous.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Its like saying that all of a thing can be blue when none of its parts is in any respect blue.

Every single hair which makes up a polar bear's fur is transparent. Does that mean a polar bear's fur is not white?

[seer]

Seriously? Spacetime hasn't been observed? I mean, I could understand a debate regarding the properties of spacetime, but to claim that space and time are not observed parts of the universe seems fairly disingenuous.

But how is time observed?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But how is time observed?

With data gathered from different events, in exactly the same way that space is observed with data gathered from different locations.

[JimL]

I'd rather take it, that before God created, it is not true that "nothing" existed, it is only true that "nothing that was made" existed.

So then, you have it that both god, i.e. immaterial being, or mind, and the substance out of which he created are both eternal and that the two are distinct and separate from one another. And you believe this why?

[seer]

With data gathered from different events, in exactly the same way that space is observed with data gathered from different locations.

I'm not sure what that means Boxing. This data you refer to must have to do with the flow of time, but didn't you or Carroll make the case that the flow of time is an illusion?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not sure what that means Boxing. This data you refer to must have to do with the flow of time, but didn't you or Carroll make the case that the flow of time is an illusion?

Time doesn't need to actually flow in order that events have a discernible sequence, any more than space needs to flow in order that locations have a discernible sequence.