A question for atheists and agnostics

[MaxP]

That's funny. I thought we were talking about a very specific question. Trotting out the names of men not related to the subject at hand isn't helping your case.

Yes, "Why is there something?"
Sometimes "rather than nothing" is added at the end. The essential question of metaphysics, of which all the names I "trotted out" contributed much too.

 

[MaxP]

Max, I did read that some time ago, and did not find it convincing. Aquinas in the end (AFAICS) simply ascribes the word/concept 'God' to 'First Cause', and shores up his argument with the nature of life on this planet - I rather wish he'd lived post-Darwin; it would be interesting to see what he might have said then, logical man that he was.

I am an old-fashioned agnostic, and what Huxley said (and he did invent the term) is pretty close to what I think, so I'll only offer you a tiny bit of reading in return. ;-D

My bolding below -B

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."

"The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction." [" Agnosticism," 1889]

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. "["Christianity and Agnosticism," 1889]

Hmmm. I dunno, maybe it's our differing education and experience, but I found Aquinas's arguments to be compelling, so I believe things can be inferred about God, with logical justification...
I respect what you believe, though. So do you think the christian God to be reasonable, or just a fictitious bedtime story?

 

[Skaloop]

And the response would be because God is an everlasting being and the basis for existence.

Which is a nonsense answer to a nonsense question.

The answer can be logically determined to be a first cause, an uncaused cause, a causeless cause, whatever you want to call. Things can then be inferred from the virtue of this entity being the first cause.

As far as "concreteness," no, there never will be an absolutely provable answer, but this is a philosophical/logical question, not a scientific one that demands absolute proof.

God is something. Why is there something instead of nothing?

 

[Skaloop]

And the response would be because God is an everlasting being and the basis for existence.

And also, that is a description (a poor one, at that) of what God is. I asked for a why.

If someone asked me why I wear glasses, I would not say that glasses are refractive lenses contained within a frame that rests upon my nose and has extensions that support it on my ears. That is what glasses are, and provides no information on why I wear them.

So tell me why is there God? I don't want to hear from you that God is eternal, or that God is an uncaused cause, or any of that junk. That is what God is. I want you to tell me why God is.

 

[JustMeSee]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

He told me that He doesn't exist.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Hmmm. I dunno, maybe it's our differing education and experience, but I found Aquinas's arguments to be compelling, so I believe things can be inferred about God, with logical justification...

Aquinas's Five Ways are deductive in structure and are therefore either sound or unsound. Whether they are personally compelling is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Wyzaard]

I think its pretty clear. Everything that can be or not be is caused by another thing, and dependent on its existence.

Not really... why are conflating one how we model empirical phenomena with metaphysical matters? Where's the justified correspondence between them?

I will ask you, how so?

Just because I was intended to be something doesn't mean that it's best that I be that something.

 

[quatona]

Then I guess you'll never be philosopher, at least a metaphysical philosopher.

You have a habit of addressing the person.

 

[UncleHermit]

Usually, the question is "Why is there something instead of nothing?" and the answer is assumed to be God. But God is something, so the response would then be "Why is there God instead of nothing?"

And the response would be because God is an everlasting being and the basis for existence.

It doesn't even answer the question, though. Why is there an "everlasting being", or a "basis for existence", instead of nothing?

 

[Freodin]

It is the easy answer: there is something, because there is something.

In a way, I agree. "Nothing" is just a philosophical construct that gets more and more irreal as further "less" you get. "Nothing" just does not exist.

 

[UncleHermit]

It is the easy answer: there is something, because there is something.

In a way, I agree. "Nothing" is just a philosophical construct that gets more and more irreal as further "less" you get. "Nothing" just does not exist.

I don't disagree, I just don't see how positing the existence of something supernatural does anything to remedy the situation.

ETA: The situation that some (not you, based on your post) believe exists, that is.

 

[Freodin]

I don't disagree, I just don't see how positing the existence of something supernatural does anything to remedy the situation.

Well, whatever "exists" as a base.... and I use "exist" here, because we do not have any term that could describe it better... would by necessity be "supernatural".

What I don´t see is how you could attribute anything to this "something". Anything he could say to describe it would have to be based on logic and inferrence... and these concepts can not be taken as valid in that case.

When you really start at "nothing", logic and such does not exist. If you do start with that, the question remains valid "why does it exist?".

 

[UncleHermit]

Well, whatever "exists" as a base.... and I use "exist" here, because we do not have any term that could describe it better... would by necessity be "supernatural".

I don't understand this part - why would it have to be supernatural? Couldn't it just be something natural that is not yet understood (like almost everthing else that was at one point claimed to be supernatural)?

 

[Freodin]

I don't understand this part - why would it have to be supernatural? Couldn't it just be something natural that is not yet understood (like almost everthing else that was at one point claimed to be supernatural)?

Bear with me... that will get a little complicated (and most certainly completely crazy):

The line of reasoning starts with: what is nothing? "Nothing" is a quantifier... it is applied to something that is "not there".
But that would require "there" to be existent. So away with that as well. Nothing exists nowhere. But there are still those silly rules that say "Something cannot exist and not-exist at once." Away with logic, too.

So you arrive at "nothing" by stripping everything away that might be used to describe it. At some point, you cannot say anything about it anymore... there simply is no way to "understand" it.

That is what I would call "supernatural".

 

[MaxP]

When you really start at "nothing", logic and such does not exist. If you do start with that, the question remains valid "why does it exist?".

There never was nothing...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There never was nothing...

Allegedly.

My answer to the question ("Why is there something (rather than nothing)?") is:

I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

Maybe we'll find out one day. Maybe we won't. But not being able to answer the 'Big Questions' is hardly an indictment on atheism: no one can answer them.

 

[Freodin]

There never was nothing...

Yes and no...

 

[MaxP]

Maybe we'll find out one day. Maybe we won't. But not being able to answer the 'Big Questions' is hardly an indictment on atheism: no one can answer them.

Never said it was an indictment on atheism; more of a indictment on atheism's widespread condemnation of God as a fairy tale.
Logically, you can provide explanations, or theories.
I believe what I believe about the question to be fact. I don't understand why some have a problem with that; if I'm wrong, its no skin off your back. Also, it is not an illogical conclusion.
Also believing what I believe is true does not mean I am not open to others theories, but I will argue and try to convince people of mine.

 

[MaxP]

Yes and no...

I'm all ears(eyes?).

 

[quatona]

There never was nothing...

That would be a good reason to reject the question "Why is there something?" as nonsense.