Thanks. I'll try to wade through all the big words on this link. So far it seems interesting, like it might be a good model to explain how Intelligent Design could be considered scientific.

So ID is scientific?

I'm not implying that there can't be a solution, but so far all theories and "solutions" pertaining to infinite questions such as this only evokes further conflicting arguments with no conclusions or satisfying compromises. I don't know what 'could be,' and I can gracefully accept that.

Yet physics is the only one that can be corroborated by your senses and observation. And physics is the only one that can be corroborated by other people without linguistic manipulation.

Metaphysics is a great reflection of the human mind. But I've yet to hear why we should believe it has any relationship with the world.

In other words, physics is internally coherent, but not true. I prefer metaphysics because it acknowledges these deficiencies. It's perspective is broader. But it is not more capable of discovering truth than physics.

Truth is an ideal that all intellectual endeavors aspire to, but let's agree for the sake of argument that truth cannot be absolutely known by any method.

I happen to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And, if you will look it up in a reliable atlas, or the latest World Book of Facts, so will you.

Kenneth, do me the favor of not replying to my posts anymore unless you'll do me the courtesy of reading them first. I'm getting a bit tired of misattributions, misreadings, misinterpretations, and nonsequiturs.

And by the way, you have conventional knowledge of the capital of Ecuador. You do not have absolute knowledge of it. I wouldn't have had to point that out if you'd read my post. :nonooo:

Are you acquainted with all the theories and solutions? It may, after all, depend on which question we are considering. I would not be so quick to lump them all together.After all, one of the "big questions" used to be, what is the nature of the stars. And many people held that such a question could never be answered. Not long after, the spectroscope was invented. And, of course, some of those big question may be pseudo-questions, which have no answers because they are not real questions. Children sometimes ask, "How high it up?" Does that question have an answer? Philosophy has learned to examine questions before trying to answer them. It often turns out that these questions vanish when they are examined.

Truth is an ideal that all intellectual endeavors aspire to, but let's agree for the sake of argument that truth cannot be absolutely known by any method.

The difference between physics and metaphysics boils down to sensory experience, does it not? Both disciplines employ logic, but physics (and physical sciences) use logic to string together observations. And thus observations corroborate the thread of logic. Metaphysics does not. It's entirely contingent upon human thought processes and human language.

I don't understand why proponents of metaphysics are dismissive of sensory experience, considering that we are sensory creatures LONG before we're ever rational creatures. We're sensory before we're even born, before we have language, before we have literacy. Our existence in this world cannot ever be fully divorced from our sensory nature.

My son, who is now 16 months old, is learning language by pointing at things he sees and listening to the name we give. "Light", "window", "glasses", etc. In other words, the chief tool of metaphysics, which is language, is derived from sensory experience.

In other words, there is a fundamental truth in the things we can observe. We may never know that truth per se, but we'll know of it.

There is a rock on the ground in front of us. We both see it. We don't agree on the name or the nature of it, but it's there. We are independently corroborating one another's experience.

Metaphysics can never have a common denominator like that. It's like seeing ghosts -- if I don't see it, then why should I believe you?

You have preconceived notions of something do not know at all. I suggest you learn a bit more before you conclude anything.

What is the difference between my knowing that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, and my absolutely knowing it is?

If someone were to ask me whether I happen to know what the capital of Ecuador is, I would reply, "Yes, Ecuador". Would that be wrong?

Can you please specify which parts of Aedes's post #145 you disagree with, and give your reasons in each case.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I didn't read the 16 pages of this thread, but here are my two hellcents about the original question:



Before trying to answer that question, one should precise what the word "Why" means. Causality? Finality? Probability? Evidence? Something else?

Take, for example, the classical question "Why did the hellhound cross the Styx?" Depending on what you are actually asking for, the answer may vary:
[INDENT]Finality: "To catch a soul he saw on the other side."
[/INDENT][INDENT]Causality: "Because his hunger for souls made him do so."
[/INDENT][INDENT]Probability: "Because hellhounds do this all the time."
[/INDENT][INDENT]Evidence: "Because several withesses have seen it."
[/INDENT][INDENT]Mystical identity: "Because by swimming over the Styx for the first time, a young hellhound enters adult age."
[/INDENT][INDENT]etc.
[/INDENT]Of course, when you apply the word "Why?" to existence itself, it's not sure that there is actually a cause, or finality, or whatever you are asking for. So the most appropriate answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing? " might simply be:
[INDENT]"Because."
[/INDENT]

If a natural state is one that requires no explanation, or is at least self-explanatory, I have a possible solution.

First of all, I will posit that something cannot come from nothing...or should I say somethingness cannot come from nothingness? If what we call nothing (or nothingness) were to have the potential of bringing about something, then it would not truly be nothing, would it? It would only be something that was devoid of all qualities except the potential of bringing about something. Therefore, I assert that something must always have existed.

Now permit me to borrow a point from cosmology. Work with me on this. The big bang cosmology declares that space and time came into being with the universe. You may also see this as saying that space and time are elements of the universe, as are matter and energy, etc.

The question this brings to mind is: What manner of something might have existed to bring about the space-time universe if indeed there is no space or time independent of that universe?

Something existing independent of space and time can be described by the space-time qualities it cannot possess. In other words, we may say what qualities this something may not possess.

Something existing independent of space cannot have a size or shape. It cannot have an outside or an inside, so it must be indivisible, or undifferentiated as we may say, and it must be solitary in an absolute sense. It must be one without other. In fact, number and multiplicity are quite impossible without space. Our something then must be understood as everything. And it can have no location. Perhaps there are other spatial qualities you can think of that our "something" cannot have

Something existing independent of time cannot change; it is immutable because no event or other process can occur without time. It cannot begin. It cannot end.

There. We can stop here.

If something cannot begin or end because there is no time for it, then it simply must exist and may never (a time reference) not exist. We have already established that something can only come from something. Now we have further stipulated a condition in which that something must have the explanation of its existence within itself, that condition being that it exist in the absence of time, e.g. "outside" the space-time universe.

I think its a decent argument for why something exists rather than not.

Samm

It is possible that our universe came from an existing universe with it` s own space-time. So, i see no reason to postulate such "soemthing".

Let me reformulate your arguments:

1) This "something" existence, because this something is the efficient cause for our universe.

2) This "something" cannot be described by space, or time, so it is "outside" of space, and time.

I am thinking how this is an answer to why there is something rather than nothing? One answer is to use 1, and say this "something" cause the universe to exist, but it seems mysteries to me why you would want to postulate such an entity that is so mysteries, and satisfies 2.

I hope your see the problem!

There is infinite many ways you can postulate some entity X that cause the universe into being, and make claims about it `s property. Anyone can do it. I don` t have to be "convinced". All i ask is for your to show me evidence. What you are doing here is making speculations.

It is not speculation that the universe has evolved from a point when space was at least smaller than a proton. That's a fact

If something called the universe came into being with the big bang, we may ask from what did it come into being from. Did something come from nothing, or was there something that already existed at the beginning of time (t=1), something that existed before the process of time ever begun, something that existed at t=0?

Anything prior to the big bang is speculation. But we have reason and logic that allow us to reach some conclusions. One thing we can conclude is that the universe did not come from nothing. Even if it appeared to do so, the nothing from which the universe came must then have had the potentiality of the universe within it. So that's a whole lot of something disguised as nothing. I can see no way of arguing that the universe came from nothing--but I bet my boxers that whatever the universe came from probably would have had the appearance of nothing to any human observer with a polaroid.:bigsmile:

Now what can we know about something that exists completely outside our sphere of experience? Was the "something from which the universe came" (SFWTUC) green or blue, round or square, young or British? Obviously we can't answer those (stupid) questions. But is it possible that the SFWTUC was maybe two hundred billion years old? Well, no, not unless it existed in its own space-time bubble like our universe does. And if it exists in such a temporal framework, we must ask the same questions about tis origin as we ask about the origin of our universe. So this extends the issue without answering the problem.

But when we find something that exists outside of time, the problem of origins is resolved. Something that exists outside of time can have no origin, and it cannot age, and it cannot terminate. It's outside of time. It can only be or not be. This is not mysterious or spooky or holy and sacrosanct,; its just plum simple logic. Nothing fancy. The SFWTUC must exist outside of time, and therefore, it simply is. What is it? It simply is t=0 for one thing. It's a time before times beyond, which it is impossible further to procede.

Now IF there is SFWTUC, then what I have just said about it is not wild speculation. Rather it is reasoned and logical conjecture based upon defined limitations. You cannot exhibit temporal qualities when there is no time. If you exhibit a temporal quality, like experiencing or changing or moving by a distance of half the hair of an atom, then you are within the framework of time. Tell me where this is spooky and mysterious. Show me how this is wild speculation.

This is the one occasion when science can not dictate the possibilities or deny any possibility. It has no authority nor conviction to dictate or act by its advocates a superior view. Even the atheists sarcastic pink elephant has just as much claim to a cause as any faith driven scientific mandate. Logic can be used, but only if it has value to the evidence that is provided, so multi verses ,parallel universes,vibrating strings or any new theoretical mumbo jumbo are just as irrelevant, as there is not one ounce of proof for any of these proposals.

So lets not be so superior or dismissive of any philosophical reasoning, as all are relevant and have equal authority.