What is there something rather than nothing?

Tim Robbins

A common argment by theist (the more intellectual among them IMO) is:
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

This argument was first made by Aristotle and is used by many theists. For example, Prof Ger. Casey in his debate with Dawkins on the Late Late Show.

My answer to it is:
"define nothing?"
What I am saying is "nothing?" Is this a scientific or philosophical concept, what is it?

I think nothing is a human construct we use for when our sense data is not telling us something our brain can make use of, but that's a limitation of our brain it doesn't mean nothing exists.

Anybody else like to share their comments or opinions on this one.

joe_chicken

I think that "something" is a human construct too, so to dismiss "nothing" solely based on the same fact, doesn't really get us anywhere.

Son Goku

joe_chicken wrote:

I think that "something" is a human construct too, so to dismiss "nothing" solely based on the same fact, doesn't really get us anywhere.

Although it is a construct in the sense that it is our characterisation of contents of the universe, I don't think it holds the same status as "nothing". For instance we've all experienced "something"s, where as "nothing" is unexperienced and by definition unexperiencable, since it has no properties. It's never been shown to be anything but an artefact of our language, where as "something" deals with objects we all experience. Even if the objects aren't real (although I think going down that road is pointless), "something" has shown its usefulness, where as nothing hasn't.

Tim Robbins makes a good point though, in the sense that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" presumes that nothing can, in potentia exist and begs the question.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

I think that "something" is a human construct too, so to dismiss "nothing" solely based on the same fact, doesn't really get us anywhere.

Depends on what you mean by a human construct

I think what Son and Tim are getting at is that the idea of "nothing" might not have an relation to a possible state in the real world. It might only exist as a concept in our head.

We view the world around us as sets of objects, whether we are talking about chairs or atoms. It is natural therefore that we would view "nothing" as a set with no elements.

But this might not relate back to reality in any meaningful way.

joe_chicken

Son Goku wrote:

For instance we've all experienced "something"s

I'm not being cheeky, but how do we know we've experienced something?

Surely to know whether we have experienced something, we would have had to experience nothing?

Son Goku wrote:

Even if the objects aren't real (although I think going down that road is pointless),

Agreed.

Son Goku wrote:

"something" has shown its usefulness, where as nothing hasn't.

That seems like a strange statement coming from a scientific person (I'm getting at the usefulness of "0")

The idea of having "something" is tied inextricably to "nothing".

Dades

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055090060

You been reading Nietzsche or something?

Son Goku

joe_chicken wrote:

I'm not being cheeky, but how do we know we've experienced something?

Yeah, I get what you're saying. All, I'll say is I know of nobody who has experienced truely nothing, where as everybody has experienced something, in order to have a personality that would have to be the case. I'm not going to go for total philosophical rigor, although in a sense it still wouldn't matter if our our experiences are true, as the falsehood of the experiences is something*.

Surely to know whether we have experienced something, we would have had to experience nothing?

I don't think Schopenhauer originally argued this, but it is a natural extension of his ideas. I would say no, I can think of a few human concepts whose opposites genuinly do not exist and yet exist in our language, so we didn't need to experience them to experience the original thing. We simply experienced the original thing and then imagined its non-existent inverse.
In fact there are also things, which in our language have no inverse and yet their inverses do exist.

joe_chicken wrote:

That seems like a strange statement coming from a scientific person (I'm getting at the usefulness of "0")

Good point. Zero however is loaded with properties when you look at it further and it was for this reason that it was introduced. For instance, how it behaves under addition:
a + 0 = a, meaning it is the "identity" or bases of addition. Zero was introduced and has its usefullness because of its algebraic properties.

joe_chicken wrote:

The idea of having "something" is tied inextricably to "nothing".

This in a sense may be true. That the "idea of something" is linked to the "idea of nothing". At least in maths, everything is founded on the idea of the empty or null set, combined with a few rules.
In literature, the two often go hand in hand in terms of contrast. It could be that the human mind needs these inverses.

*This sentence might be total bollocks.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055090060

You been reading Nietzsche or something?

Sorry
1. It should be "why" is there something... not "what is there something rather than nothing?"
2. The philosophy forum is a bit quiet, unfortunately. (Dito the Skeptics forum.)
Is it bad karma duplicating posts? If so we can delete the other one.
I think this question is relevant to A&A as it used in many discussions usually by Theists who want to try to confuse Atheists IMO.

In answer to your question, reading Russell right now, 'History of Western Philosophy', haven't got to Nietzsche yet, only on page 300.

joe_chicken

Son Goku wrote:

Good point. Zero however is loaded with properties when you look at it further and it was for this reason that it was introduced.

So by this reasoning; nothing can't be defined.

If we were to define it, it would have a definition and therefore not be nothing.

But hold on, there is no definition of nothing, therefore it must exist!

As you pointed out before, this is far too hard to discuss.

Zombrex

Why is "God" the answer to why there is something rather than nothing

It just leads one on to the inevitable "Why is there God?"

Seriously I never get why theists don't get that problem with their logic. They just come up with a nonsense definition of God not requiring a creator or reason for existing.

Son Goku

joe_chicken wrote:

So by this reasoning; nothing can't be defined.

If we were to define it, it would have a definition and therefore not be nothing.

But hold on, there is no definition of nothing, therefore it must exist!

As you pointed out before, this is far too hard to discuss.

You have me there. All I can manage is this:

1. Nothing is propertyless.
2. Definitions require properties to specify something.

=> Hence, nothing should have no definition.

3. This means that it is that which is undefined.

However (3) is a definition. Hence the concept is, in itself, self-contradictory and inconsistent.

Hence nothing does not exist.
(Or if it does, I'm not able to define what I'm talking about. )

leaba

Surely a theist would agree that if a god could create something, it could equally have created nothing (or not created the something leaving the nothing(except the god of course!?!)). For that matter if it was omnipotent, it could presumably make itself not exist, leaving even more nothing.

So from they're point of view...even if there was nothing they could still argue there was a god. So how is "Why is there something" an argument for anything.

Why is nothing any more likely than something with or without a god?

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

A common argment by theist (the more intellectual among them IMO) is:
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Its not an argument, its a question.

The first response I would give would typically be : "Must there be a reason, and if so, why?"

If pushed, I would probably go to "I don't know - why do you think there is something instead of nothing".

Should they (in this case, the theist) appeal to some God-centric explanation, I would ask them why they think there is God instead of nothing.

Ultimately, God hides the "I don't know" behind a layer of misdirection. If the theist is pushing you to an answer which ultimately is "I don't know", then there's no point in avoiding it.

Admit clearly that you don't know and then make it clear that they don't know either.

bonkey

leaba wrote:

Surely a theist would agree that if a god could create something,

Woah.

If you posit the existence of a God, then you're not starting with "nothing", you're starting with "God".

The question of "why is there something rather than nothing", for the theist, should be as applicable before God created the universe as after.

In otherwords, for the atheist, it could be rewritten as "why is there a universe", but for the theist, it should be "why is there a God".

leaba

I think we're in violent agreement, but I didn't posit the existence of a god in that first paragraph. I was exploring the idea that a God capable of creating something might also be capable of creating nothing.

BTW, relativity puts a bit of an alternative slant on before and after.

bonkey

leaba wrote:

I think we're in violent agreement, but I didn't posit the existence of a god in that first paragraph. I was exploring the idea that a God capable of creating something might also be capable of creating nothing.

You start with "a God". To get from tehre to "nothing", then "a God" has to go away.

The only way a God could "create nothing" is by uncreating everything that was, including itself.

BTW, relativity puts a bit of an alternative slant on before and after.

Well, yes, but the concept of relativity is only known to hold within certain regions of the space-time that forms our universe.

I admit that it was a poor choice of words for me to choose, but the point I was making is still, I believe, valid : even if God had not created the universe, the theist position must be that there was still God.

leaba

leaba wrote:

Surely a theist would agree that if a god could create something, it could equally have created nothing (or not created the something leaving the nothing(except the god of course!?!)). For that matter if it was omnipotent, it could presumably make itself not exist, leaving even more nothing.

bonkey wrote:

You start with "a God". To get from tehre to "nothing", then "a God" has to go away.

The only way a God could "create nothing" is by uncreating everything that was, including itself.

That's what I said.

IMO, whether there is something or nothing has no impact on whether there's a god involved.

Zombrex

leaba wrote:

That's what I said.

IMO, whether there is something or nothing has no impact on whether there's a god involved.

I think Bonkey's point is that if there is God then there isn't "nothing", since something (ie God) exists.

For there to be truly nothing God cannot exist, because God is, after all, something.

leaba

Yes but if, as the theist probably believes, God is omnipotent...surely he could decide to wink out of existence and leave absolutly nothing(!?!)

leaba

Actually, the whole concept of introducing God into an argument makes any sensible debate impossible. Once you do introduce the concept of an omnipotent, miracle performing entity into the equation all bets are off.

An example is the whole argument about the Miss D case. One of the arguments I heard from the theist side was questioning how anyone could truly know if the baby would be born with severe problems...sure the baby could be miraculously cured.

You cannot have a debate with someone if you don't agree about some things at a fundamental level.

aidan24326

It could be argued that true 'nothingness' is impossible, as for nothingness to have given rise to 'somethingness', which we now have, it couldn't have been truly 'nothing', it had to be a 'nothing with potential', i.e the potential to produce 'something'. Hence we've given it a property, the property to produce somethingness. And any 'nothingness' that went before had to have had that property, because there is now a universe, and we're here to observe it.

If nature abhors a vacuum, then I say it abhors 'nothingness' even moreso. Why is there something rather than nothing? Well who knows, there just is, if there wasn't something we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

As for there being matter and energy rather than just a big vast vaccuum, I think it's been shown that the state of vacuum is itself unstable, maybe san goku is more versed on the physics of vacuum than I.

The theist's 'there is something rather than nothing therefore god' argument is just yet another example of playing the god card. At least an atheist can admit 'I don't really know', the theist will invariably use god to fill whatever gap needs filling. Then you hit him with the 6-mark question 'but then where did god come from?'. 'I have him in a corner now', you say. 'Ah but god was just always there you see'. It's tiresome really.

dan719

joe_chicken wrote:

So by this reasoning; nothing can't be defined.

If we were to define it, it would have a definition and therefore not be nothing.

But hold on, there is no definition of nothing, therefore it must exist!

As you pointed out before, this is far too hard to discuss.

Your logic is flawed and a full refutation is avaliable in Bertrand Russel's 'A history of western philosophy'. It follows along these lines.

You assume that by defining something you are claiming it to have an existance, i.e it exists because we can construct it mentally.
This is only the case if you say existence is projected onto something by our own minds.(think ' does the tree continue to be, when there is no one to see')
But each mind projects a different existance onto the same objects. My mind says that 'I am dan719' maybe everyone else's mind 'says he is a pr**k' .
Therefore either existance is merely objective, and therefore cannot be defined(and therefore according to another post by son goku- is nothingness) or else existance is an independant property that exists similar to Plato's mathematical world and ergo nothingness is merely the absence of this property, which can result from either a failure of a subjective mind to percieve existance or from other postulated event. The destruction of the abstract world of nothingness.

skeptic griggsy

Yes , Son Goku, another of theistic use of logical fallacies! Why would there be God and nothing? People came out with God as an anthropomorphic answer. People still use God as pareidolia- like seeing the man on the moon.[Please see Bede Rundle's "Why is there Something rather than Nothing?']