# A possible solution to why is there something rather than nothing.

BrightNoon

Mon 12 Oct, 2009 09:37 pm
@ACB,
Logical problems with the 'from nothing' argument

If we accept that 1) the universe came into being from nothing, and, that 2) 'nothing' in one place or on one occasion is the same as 'nothing' in another, then why should the universe not have come into being before it did, or after? Was there no cause?

If we accept that it is possible for something to come from nothing, then we must accept that not every event need have a cause; saying that 'causation was created with the universe' does not solve the problem, it merely avoids it. If one event need not have a cause, then no events need have causes, in which case all of science is competely incorrect and all regularity in observed phenomena is pure coincidence-Or, if we want to make the 'primal event' special, such that only it does not require a cause, on what basis can we do so? In what way is it fundementally different from post-bang events? And if it is so different, how did 'regular' events arise from the 'special event.'

vectorcube

Mon 12 Oct, 2009 11:43 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;97075 wrote:
Logical problems with the 'from nothing' argument

If we accept that 1) the universe came into being from nothing, and, that 2) 'nothing' in one place or on one occasion is the same as 'nothing' in another, then why should the universe not have come into being before it did, or after? Was there no cause?

If we accept that it is possible for something to come from nothing, then we must accept that not every event need have a cause; saying that 'causation was created with the universe' does not solve the problem, it merely avoids it. If one event need not have a cause, then no events need have causes, in which case all of science is competely incorrect and all regularity in observed phenomena is pure coincidence-Or, if we want to make the 'primal event' special, such that only it does not require a cause, on what basis can we do so? In what way is it fundementally different from post-bang events? And if it is so different, how did 'regular' events arise from the 'special event.'

To be fair. Causality is a relation between in events specified( space+time). If the bb is a "non-event", then the rule of causality don ` t need to apply.

xris

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 04:07 am
@vectorcube,
If we see the universe as a closed cct. with no outside influence then you have begining without cause. If you accept you cant have nothing then you have to see a constant state of being. As the universe does not show this constant state but has a defined start, then we can only presume the bb was the first event without a cause. Science does not ever give us an example of an event without a visible cause. You cant have something then nothing then something, it has to be a chain of events and causes.

Look at this universe does it give the slightest sign of causing another bb outside of its visible horizon, does it need to be cause for the next universe? If we accept any other reasoning it becomes a box of magic tricks needing more and more illogical acceptance of proposed theories.

Alan McDougall

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 05:28 am
@xris,
xris;97128 wrote:
If we see the universe as a closed cct. with no outside influence then you have begining without cause. If you accept you cant have nothing then you have to see a constant state of being. As the universe does not show this constant state but has a defined start, then we can only presume the bb was the first event without a cause. Science does not ever give us an example of an event without a visible cause. You cant have something then nothing then something, it has to be a chain of events and causes.

Look at this universe does it give the slightest sign of causing another bb outside of its visible horizon, does it need to be cause for the next universe? If we accept any other reasoning it becomes a box of magic tricks needing more and more illogical acceptance of proposed theories.

To me there was never a nothingness, there has always been and being A something, absolute nothingness "is" a negation that cannot be described with words My use of "IS" in the previous sentence is wrong becuase by stating nothing "is" I wrongly give it a state of existence

Remove everything thing from existence, time matter energy force space the universe everything then ??

O O O O O .

REMOVE EVERYTHING AND?

Pathfinder

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 06:37 am
@vectorcube,
Try and comprehend the box in a box in a box scenario and apply that to first cause. Maybe its not a matter of some thing happening, an evenbt, maybe its a matter of the where, the place for some thing to happen in.

This earth sits in a solar system, which sits in the galaxy, which sits a universe. What does the universe sit in? Doesn't everything have to have a place to be in?

No thing, no place! there is something not quite ordinaru about whatever resides at the beginning of things.

xris

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 07:23 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;97147 wrote:
Try and comprehend the box in a box in a box scenario and apply that to first cause. Maybe its not a matter of some thing happening, an evenbt, maybe its a matter of the where, the place for some thing to happen in.

This earth sits in a solar system, which sits in the galaxy, which sits a universe. What does the universe sit in? Doesn't everything have to have a place to be in?

No thing, no place! there is something not quite ordinaru about whatever resides at the beginning of things.
If you can find a box that keeps nothing in it, then i might just consider it. I often wonder if you had a box with absolutely nothing in it, would it exist? You cant surround nothing because there is nothing to surround. Once you make a box you describe whats in it. The universe as far as cosmologists can tell us has no box to sit in, this is it.

Alan McDougall

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 07:24 am
@Pathfinder,
Here is some more I would like to add to this interesting topic

Near Death and Mystical Knowledge - Mystical Supernatural mind of Alan McDougall

Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists. There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.

Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it i

I cannot believe that, indeed, I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions. Why is there something instead of nothing?

With nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy.

(Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.) Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have "nothing", but definite and absolutely do indeed have 'something'. This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?

Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race. There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man.

You see the universe has a strange Goldie locks condition about it, i.e., it cannot be too hot or too cold etc, etc, etc, but it has to be just absolutely correct, precise and right or life would not have come into existence and we would not be around to contemplate, debate or dialogue on this ultimate enigma. We would not exist. Life hangs on and depends on this knife- edge of harmonies conditions that have to be sustained over countless billions of years, for us to have come into existence and continue to exist. Makes one think, does it not?

Why do we have a universe? My answer is that god created the universe. However, then, one can ask, who/what created god? I believe god was not created and this 'fact' is beyond our understanding and must be accepted on faith.

God is far and beyond our understanding, everlasting, without beginning or end, eternal and ever -existing, but was (and is, and will be) always existed. He/she is indeed the very author of all existence.

Indeed, god is so mighty, omni-all that he/she exists, forever, far above our reasoning and above the ultimate reaches of our logic. something we and all the vain puffed up scientist, philosophers, etc, will just have to accept in time, we will, at the end of the day have to, relent and acknowledge that somewhere out there is a awesome, colossal, mighty, great infinite intelligence that in comparison that we are as a microbe is to a human or perhaps horrors even much further remote, from the omni-all power we call god

It will indeed be a most humbling experience for us to finally realize and acknowledge, that there are things and mysteries that will; remain forever, absolutely, totally beyond human comprehension understand and reside eternally in the mind of our creator god

It is a fact the finite can simply never ever comprehend the mind of the infinite

God Exists and inescapable fact of logic so maybe he can create something out of nothing?

xris

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 07:35 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;97135 wrote:
To me there was never a nothingness, there has always been and being A something, absolute nothingness "is" a negation that cannot be described with words My use of "IS" in the previous sentence is wrong becuase by stating nothing "is" I wrongly give it a state of existence

Remove everything thing from existence, time matter energy force space the universe everything then ??

O O O O O .

REMOVE EVERYTHING AND?
The problem is Alan we know when the universe came into being and we therefor try to tell ourselves, if we know when it started there must be something before and we then get confused because there is nothing. We have to accept that nothing before did not exist because nothing cant exist. So we have an isolated moment or moments and we can only judge those moments by the events that happened at that moment.. We have to accept the universe is just as mortal as us, it lives by the same cosmic inheritance. If we see anything we see footprints that for some are considerably significant and for others a matter of natural science. Its the greatest mystery and the greatest divide between what is and what is possible.

I still believe there is an existance possible without this mortal cause and effect universe.

SammDickens

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 08:58 am
@Alan McDougall,
I'm sorry folks, but to me the Ragnarok of philosophy is the statement (in essence) that "God did it." That statement is antithetical to all philosophy.

It's not that we're attributing the universe to some god. It's that we say God is beyond human understanding, a wall of mystery past which philosophy cannot go. If we wish to attribute something to a god, it is our obligation as philosophers to explain god, where it comes from or how it escapes the cause-effect cycle, how it "makes" the universe, etc.

Otherwise, we are only saying "This is all the philosophy I can do, and no-one else can do more than me. And that's it."

How lame that is! How shallow it is that we should limit our reach into the unknown, and furthermore that we should declare our limit to be the limit of all exploration. It is the heart of philosophy to make the initial exploration into the "unexplored country," to question where no answers yet exist, and to establish a body of answers founded in reasoning and imagination.

I love my Goddess, but I am no philosopher if I set her up as the guardian of the gate I am too danged timid to venture past.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-13-2009 at 10:05 AM ----------

Alan McDougall, your post started out alright, but then you sold out. You stopped being a philosopher and became just another work-a-day pious churchman talking about how wonderful and mysterious your deity is. I've heard it all before, and it don't tell me one thing of any philosophical value. In my younger days, we called it a cop-out.

Samm

xris

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 09:33 am
@SammDickens,
Im afraid i have to agree with Samm ,Alan. If we make a claim in life we have to try and substantiate it. I believe in the possibility but we need to tread carefully making claims we can not prove. I could never believe in a benevolent god as the evidence is sadly lacking. Lets try and keep god out of this one debate.

Alan McDougall

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 09:46 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;97176 wrote:
I'm sorry folks, but to me the Ragnarok of philosophy is the statement (in essence) that "God did it." That statement is antithetical to all philosophy.

It's not that we're attributing the universe to some god. It's that we say God is beyond human understanding, a wall of mystery past which philosophy cannot go. If we wish to attribute something to a god, it is our obligation as philosophers to explain god, where it comes from or how it escapes the cause-effect cycle, how it "makes" the universe, etc.

Otherwise, we are only saying "This is all the philosophy I can do, and no-one else can do more than me. And that's it."

How lame that is! How shallow it is that we should limit our reach into the unknown, and furthermore that we should declare our limit to be the limit of all exploration. It is the heart of philosophy to make the initial exploration into the "unexplored country," to question where no answers yet exist, and to establish a body of answers founded in reasoning and imagination.

I love my Goddess, but I am no philosopher if I set her up as the guardian of the gate I am too danged timid to venture past.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-13-2009 at 10:05 AM ----------

Alan McDougall, your post started out alright, but then you sold out. You stopped being a philosopher and became just another work-a-day pious churchman talking about how wonderful and mysterious your deity is. I've heard it all before, and it don't tell me one thing of any philosophical value. In my younger days, we called it a cop-out.

Samm

Sam you read me wrong, to me god is as good a solution for the something all around us. Nearly every topic in this and other philosophy forums revolve around this hypothetical being god.

I am not a churchman, never go to church, do not follow any doctrine or dogma and despise religious exclusive fundamentalism. That said I nevertheless have my own belief in god and inner faith that he exists and as the prime source of everything Give me a better explanation for creation and existence and I will move away from my position

xris

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:27 am
@Alan McDougall,
Its not the point Alan it dilutes the debate, three threads have been debating this nothing and how it is or not possible for something to come from nothing. We have attempted to keep any idea of a mysterious imagined or real god from the debate, no matter our own personal beliefs.

If you approach it with that pre concluded view, certain debaters will question all your logic, not just your views on belief. If you follow your logic it may well lead you to a creator imagined but you must not enter every debate with that governing your logic. Thanks, xris

Alan McDougall

Tue 13 Oct, 2009 10:56 pm
@xris,
xris;97195 wrote:
Its not the point Alan it dilutes the debate, three threads have been debating this nothing and how it is or not possible for something to come from nothing. We have attempted to keep any idea of a mysterious imagined or real god from the debate, no matter our own personal beliefs.

If you approach it with that pre concluded view, certain debaters will question all your logic, not just your views on belief. If you follow your logic it may well lead you to a creator imagined but you must not enter every debate with that governing your logic. Thanks, xris

But xris we all approached the topic with a pre-concluded view, if we had no viewpoint we could not debate could we

I will, however leave out the god idea and see how the debates progresses from there

vectorcube

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 01:17 am
@xris,
xris;97128 wrote:
If we see the universe as a closed cct. with no outside influence then you have begining without cause. If you accept you cant have nothing then you have to see a constant state of being. As the universe does not show this constant state but has a defined start, then we can only presume the bb was the first event without a cause. Science does not ever give us an example of an event without a visible cause. You cant have something then nothing then something, it has to be a chain of events and causes.

Look at this universe does it give the slightest sign of causing another bb outside of its visible horizon, does it need to be cause for the next universe? If we accept any other reasoning it becomes a box of magic tricks needing more and more illogical acceptance of proposed theories.

Do you even realize that the word "cause" entail? There are so many errors here that for me to give my attention to them means i have to write a 12 page essay. It is so very bad.

You need to calm down, and formulate clearly what you want to say. First, you write down simple, short propositions. You then ask why you think those propositions are true. If you do that, then you see why you are wrong.

Example:

Proposition: " The universe is closed".

Imply: " space is warp"

Proposition: "universe with no external influence is a universe without cause".

Analysis 1: Does something external to the whole of space-time even make sense?

Analysis 2: If cause is a relation between even in space-time, then is it even meaningful to ask this question about the cause for the whole of space-time?

You need to calm down, and stop rushing. Break big ideas down to small ideas, and analysis the smeller idea with sharp logic. Start with something simple. Be as clear and precise as you can. I am telling you that you suck in philosophy. I am teaching you to be better. At this point, you are not even capable of understanding anything i am going to tell you.

xris

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 07:59 am
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;97358 wrote:
Do you even realize that the word "cause" entail? There are so many errors here that for me to give my attention to them means i have to write a 12 page essay. It is so very bad.

You need to calm down, and formulate clearly what you want to say. First, you write down simple, short propositions. You then ask why you think those propositions are true. If you do that, then you see why you are wrong.

Example:

Proposition: " The universe is closed".

Imply: " space is warp"

Proposition: "universe with no external influence is a universe without cause".

Analysis 1: Does something external to the whole of space-time even make sense?

Analysis 2: If cause is a relation between even in space-time, then is it even meaningful to ask this question about the cause for the whole of space-time?

You need to calm down, and stop rushing. Break big ideas down to small ideas, and analysis the smeller idea with sharp logic. Start with something simple. Be as clear and precise as you can. I am telling you that you suck in philosophy. I am teaching you to be better. At this point, you are not even capable of understanding anything i am going to tell you.
The point is you are too quick to dismiss but never able to formulate your own views. Its only too easy to degrade a argument by selecting certain phrases out of context.

Yes i maintain the universe is closed, closed to any external causes and is defined by its ever expanding horizon, is that clear enough for you? Now external to the universe as a cause of this universe, this has been your proposition all a long but you have never been brave enough to give an example. I maintain there was no cause. it is you that have this determination to have a mysterious cause, not I. Now lets get a more interesting , less dismissive and constructive answer from you please.

---------- Post added 10-14-2009 at 09:16 AM ----------

vectorcube;79426 wrote:
The main question is:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

One possible solution is from Robert Nozick ` s philosophical explanation. That is, when ever someone find the need to ask 1, they are presupposing the "naturalness" of nothingness over somethingness. To eloberate, the question of the form: "why is there X, rather than Y?" presupposes Y is a natural state of being. Y is natural in the sense that there need not be any explanation for why Y obtain. Under such state of affair(where Y is natural), then we have a puzzle as to why X obtain, and not Y. The thought is that if Y is natural, and X deviates from Y, then there ought to be a force F that transform Y into X. So, by presupposing nothingess ( or Y ) is more natural, we are lead to two brute fact. They are:

A. There is a force F that transforms nothingness( or Y) into somethingness( or E). Why does this F obtain, and not F* that obtain? F is a brute fact.

and

B. Given that F transform nothingness( or Y) into X. Why is it X, and not X*? X is a brute fact.

Thus, the innocent looking question of 1 is actually a loaded question. It presupposes alot of things. According to Nozick. The prior question is "why is there something"?

reference: Amazon.com: Philosophical Explanations (9780674664791): Robert Nozick: Books
The original proposal was that nothing has a value to be examined, its has no value so no F could ever turn it into something.. 1x0= 0 ... So we only ever have something and if nothing is proposed it is a false proposal. From this we can state that if you dont see a cause for an event it is because there is no cause. The causal chain of events need to be observed. You cant have a rest between events and say this unobserved is nothing as nothing does not exist.

SammDickens

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 09:25 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan, I probably agree with you a lot more than you would think, but God cannot be a magic word that absolves us of trying to understand the whys and wherefores of things. Thus I never use the word God here, because I'm trying to explain what happened in a way that any atheist can accept. Then, if I want to call it God offline or in the religion section, I've got the whys and wherefores down already. :-)

Samm

Bhaktajan

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 09:49 am
@vectorcube,
Here is my attempt to offer a response based on the Vedas of India [FYI: each assertion I have written is directly derived from bonefide Texts. It is not a collection of my speculations but of autentic scriptural revelation from the Vedas of India ~BUT, it is indeed wholely influenced by the theistic school of Hindu Philosophy, there is virtually no references to the atheistic school of Hindu Philosophy--- although my writting may not be perfectly edited for lucidity]:

Nothingness and Something-ness both existed together and sustained each other since time-immemorial, together this is called the material manifestation or the Cosmos.

Something-ness may be found either conscious or in-animated.

The Self: Each conscious Individual, within the cosmos, has as its own address a "Vector Point" [X-Y-Z Axis Intersection]-which is indivisible, individual, eternal, and conscious.

An animated conscious individual may occupy a body [encasement].

This encasement allows the pursuit of its own gratification by way of:
1 Eating,
2 Sleeping,
3 Mating,
4 Defense (Physical, mental, ego).

After the temporal stages of birth, growth, old age and death the vector point retains only the spirit of 'direction toward a **goal'.

Thus by dint of prior cultivated interests, inherits a new body/encasement which accommodates another lifetime for the pursuit of gratification(s) along the same lines of interests that where cultivated during its last life. When this is repeated since time immemorial the sages call this 'samsara' [the cycle of birth and death].

[**the goal is often without guidance thus the 4 pursuits become the ultimate means and end of life's journey to nowhere except repeated gratification. Proper guidance allows us to reconcile, "What in the hell are we doing here?" during a lifetime].

The setting of the above pastimes [of every animated or inanimated individual point] is a large empty space of Nothingness [the sages call this empty space: 'brahman'].

The in-animated elements within the cosmos are of two kinds:
1 gross matter [earth, water, fire, air, either], and,
2 subtle [mind, intelligence, ego].

The mystery of life is the attainment of transcendence.
Some say the attainment of nirvana, or merging with the primordial 'Nothingness' is the goal.

The chain of succession of knowledge that comes to us from Vyasadeva shows us [through dissatisfaction with our own pursuits -life time after life times of gratification in countless species of life- in varying births of different status] that the goal of life is to seek the 'Absolute Truth' not relative truths.

The conclusion of the Vedas and thus the conclusion of Vedanta is the 'Absolute Truth' known as the personage known as Krishna. We know this 'Absolute Truth' in the same way we know who are real father is: from our mother [except for those who cultivated future disadvatages].
The Vedas are like our mother telling us who are father is etc, etc. ---the Vedas are known as mata-vedas (Mother Vedas).

Krishna Consciousness is the top most mystic yoga discipline:
Remembering the transcendental name, fame, form, personality, paraphernalia, entourage, and, pastimes of none other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead Bhagavan Sri Krishna, son of Vasudeva, brother of Balarama, cousin of Arjuna, source of Mahavisnu and Narayana, the original-original eternal, all-cognizant, all-blissful form of God in his Transcendent Heaven where every soul pursues reciprocal pastimes with God face to face.

Yoga is to re-link with this 'Absolute Truth', thus remembering Krishna's form assists the minute living entity [conscious Individual Vector Point] at death so as to acquire a next birth that further cultivates Krsna Conscousness till successful completion. Remembering Krishna in the material world is prescribed thus [it is also the easiest]: Chant Krishna's names. Chant the Hare Krishna Maha-Mantra. Read the Bhagavad-gita's Chapter 10 "The Opulence of the Absolute" to learn where to see God's opulence spread through-out the cosmos

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....
The history of the Vedas, from the Sri Isopanisad Introduction:
About five thousand years ago Vyasadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali-yuga.
Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four: Rig, Sama, Atharva and Yajur. Then he gave the charge of these Vedas to his different disciples.
Then Vyasadeva summarized all Vedic knowledge for scholars and philosophers in what is called the Vedanta-sutra. This is the last word of the Vedas.
Vyasadeva was not very satisfied even after compiling many Puranas and Upanisads, and even after writing the Vedanta-sutra.
Then his spiritual master, Narada, instructed him, "Explain the Vedanta-sutra." Vedanta means "ultimate knowledge," and the ultimate knowledge is Krsna. Krsna says that throughout all the Vedas one has to understand Him: vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham. Krsna says, "I am the compiler of the Vedanta-sutra, and I am the knower of the Vedas."
Therefore the ultimate objective is Krsna. The Vedanta-sutra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth: "The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates."
This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Srimad-Bhagavatam. If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam.
The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (svarat). We develop our consciousness and knowledge by receiving knowledge from others, but for Him it is said that He is self-effulgent.
The whole summary of Vedic knowledge is the Vedanta-sutra, and the Vedanta-sutra is explained by the writer himself in Srimad-Bhagavatam.
We finally request those who are actually after Vedic knowledge to try to understand the explanation of all Vedic knowledge from Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad-gita.]
yours in Krishna's service,

Bhaktajan

The above is an illustration of the prossess we (spirit souls in material bodies go through since time immemorial). Krsna Consciousness is the path that many of my colleagues have taken to after having studied world scriptures that culminated with the study of the Vedas of India---so after much real life lessons and real life questions as to the meaning and purpose of existance---after the truths available via the Judeo-Christian Bible, the Buddhist sutras, the Muslim Quran and the impersonal schools of Hindu metaphysics---everyone is destined to come to the Vedas with all the best cultivated "Questions" seeking the best "Answers". Krishna is has always been available to the spiritual seeker ---but we all had to wait until after many world wars and many historical eras to pass . . .

SammDickens

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 10:41 am
@Bhaktajan,
Thanks for the quick survey of Krishna Consciousness, Baktajan. Now, if someone would be so bold as to explain the eternal truths of the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism-Taoism-Zen, Confucianism & Shinto, Primitive religions, Paganism & Neo-paganism, and of course Miscellaneous religion...well, we may not advance our understanding of why there is something rather than nothing all that much, but we can present ourselves as equal-evangelism philosophers. Don't misunderstand me, Baktajan, I'm big on Krishna and Christ and Buddha, and Mithra and me are old buds. But seeing that our site is for philosophy, not religion, you might have presented your point of view with less hype and spin for your favorite answer-to-everything. We've already got too much of that here. Hindu vedas and upanishads are closer to philosophy than many other religious texts, and I appreciate the thought, but maybe take it over to the religion sites and come back here dressed in your undies--by which I mean, just you and us, without our attendant religious views to buffer and support us, looking out into the universe and seeking our own answers instead of those some holy man wrote down for us.

Samm

vectorcube

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 11:49 am
@xris,
xris;97385 wrote:
The point is you are too quick to dismiss but never able to formulate your own views. Its only too easy to degrade a argument by selecting certain phrases out of context.

No.

Quote:

Yes i maintain the universe is closed, closed to any external causes and is defined by its ever expanding horizon, is that clear enough for you?

I maintain that the universe is infinite, because the evidence suggest there is not enough mass to slow the expansion of space.

Quote:

Now external to the universe as a cause of this universe, this has been your proposition all a long but you have never been brave enough to give an example.

NO! I never say external. I say the bb did not come from nothing. The two thesis are diffferent.

Quote:
I maintain there was no cause.

I maintain that there is a cause.
Quote:

it is you that have this determination to have a mysterious cause, not I.

it is you that have this determination to have a mysterious cause, not I.

Quote:

Now lets get a more interesting , less dismissive and constructive answer from you please.

it is you that have this determination to have a mysterious cause, not I.
---------- Post added 10-14-2009 at 09:16 AM ----------
Quote:

The original proposal was that nothing has a value to be examined, its has no value so no F could ever turn it into something.. 1x0= 0 ...

What does this statement mean?
Quote:

So we only ever have something and if nothing is proposed it is a false proposal.

yes, because the idea is stupid.

Quote:
From this we can state that if you dont see a cause for an event it is because there is no cause.

Doubt that. I don` t know how my car is made, but it does not follow that there is not cause for my car.

Quote:
The causal chain of events need to be observed.

Don` t see why?

There are plenty of things that cause the existence of my table, but it does not follow that there is no cause for the table.

Quote:
You cant have a rest between events and say this unobserved is nothing as nothing does not exist.

Incoherent statement. need to revise.

Bhaktajan

Wed 14 Oct, 2009 11:58 am
@vectorcube,
Vector wrote:
"I maintain that the universe is infinite, because the evidence suggest there is not enough mass to slow the expansion of space."

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

But, the 'whole system' is a Whole unit onto itself. The Universe may be expanding ---but it is a singular entity that is being referred to. So it is a quanitifable entity.