The Answer to Why Something Rather Than Nothing

This is my answer to the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Atheism
• God
• Argument
• Proof
• Evidence
• Exist
• Science
• Religion
• Logic
• Fallacy
• Contradiction
• Universe
• Creation
• Existence
• Reason
• First
• Cause
• Uncaused
• Self
• Existent
• Agnosticism
• Debate
• Fallacies
• Theory
• Bible
• Faith
• Christ
• Christian
• Christianity
• Creationism
• Theism
• Theology
• Philosophy
• Syllogism
• Paradox
• Veritas48
• Daetelus

[saldownik]

Wouldn't lack of cause for something to exit be sufficient for that thing to not exist? And defining lack of something as something certainly would be tricky.

[Daetelus]

@saldownik

Yes, a lack of cause to exist "is" a cause to not exist. And a cause to exist is a lack of cause to not exist.

I didn't define a lack of something as something. I defined a lack of cause as a cause - there's a big difference. A lack of a cause does not mean the lack of somethingness altogether. It just means that particular cause is not present.

[ZeusHelios]

@Daetelus Is that not the same as saying what was outside the universe before the big bank. The lack of a cause as a somethingness or is a cause, would be like saying there was nothing outside the universe before the big bank. If there is a lack of a cause is a cause or is a somethingness then nothingness must also be a something. I think I put that right.

[Daetelus]

@ZeusHelios

It's incredibly difficult to make out what you're saying or asking, and I can't say that I've figured out either. But it does seem like I should emphasize a couple of points. One, "a lack of a cause" does not refer to the lack of any or all causes, just a particular cause, in this case, the cause to exist. And, two, while in the context of this video, "nothing" could be defined as a thing in a grammatical sense, it remains to be not a thing in every other sense. Hope that helps.

[ZeusHelios]

@Daetelus Yea sorry about the difficulty of my previous comment I realise more now what you are saying in your video. Correct me if I am wrong Your saying that a lack of a cause is a cause and therefore is a something. If that is correct. Then its still possible for there to have been nothing. As the lack of a cause as a cause would be the cause to been nothing or to not exist Even if that cause is the only thing that exist It seems your better than me at this. So I'll leave it to you Good luck.

[ZeusHelios]

Next quetion is Why things are the way they are. Why the laws of the universe are the way they are.

[ZeusHelios]

I think something and nothing co-existed. So the question is Why was there a something and a nothing and not just a something or nothing. Perhaps because if there was just a something then there must also be a nothing and if there is nothing then there must be a something. Also if nothing exist then it must be a something. Otherwise it could not exist. Hmm? Is nothing a something. Could infinite time have always existed and be the reason for something existing.

[anatureperson]

Samuel Johnson’s Dict. (1765) defines nothing. The punctuation looks a bit off; but if you read it carefully, it isn’t. 

Nothing. It is most certain, that there could never be nothing. For if there could have been an instant, wherein there was no thing, then either nothing made something or something made itself; and so was, and acted, before it was. But if there never could be nothing; then there is, and was, a being of necessity, without any beginning. Grew's Caf.

[846roger]

Daetelus, Hi. I think this is a fairly good explanation. I'd like to add that if what we've always considered to be "nothing" (no matter, energy, space, volume, time, ideas, concepts, mathematical truths, minds, etc.) were the case, then this "nothing" would completely describe, or define, the entirety of what is present and would thus be an existent state. This is the cause for why nothing exists. See sites.google.com/site/ralphthe­website for more. Thanks!