Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You do understand that some of us think that "the reason for everything that exists" is a logical impossibility, in the first place, and that your question is therefore invalid, don´t you?
Just to make sure we are not talking past each other.
I'm inclined to think that where there is something there is the effect of some cause. The question is quite natural in that case. But where there is nothing, there is no effect nor is there any cause. Therefore the question would also be nonexistant and invalid.But looking at it philosophically, from outside, so to speak, why is there nothing rather than something is an equally valid question. After all, either nothing or something has to exist. Why is one more likely than the other?
Nothing cannot exist, its impossible. how hard is that to understand. Something always has to exist, the nothingness that you speak of is something.But looking at it philosophically, from outside, so to speak, why is there nothing rather than something is an equally valid question. After all, either nothing or something has to exist. Why is one more likely than the other?
I'm inclined to think that where there is something there is the effect of some cause.
The question is quite natural in that case.
But where there is nothing, there is no effect nor is there any cause. Therefore the question would also be nonexistant and invalid.
Nothing cannot exist, its impossible. how hard is that to understand. Something always has to exist, the nothingness that you speak of is something.
It´s only valid if the "reason for everything that exists" does not exist itself. Else you are assuming that something can exist without an external reason, and that would make your question - suggesting that there must be an external reason for everything - obsolete:I disagree. It's a very natural question and is certainly not an invalid one.
It´s only valid if the "reason for everything that exists" does not exist itself. Else you are assuming that something can exist without an external reason, and that would make your question - suggesting that there must be an external reason for everything - obsolete:
This is not my line of logic. It is basic logic. Once you would have found a reason for everything that exists you would consequently have to ask what the reason is for this reason to exist. And so forth.No... I don't think that it does. No matter where your line of logic leads, everything that exists still exists and anybody who wants to can still wonder why.
Yes, I agree. I wasn't arguing that Christian metaphysics is valid because it helped give birth to science; I am saying that science doesn't depend on naturalism for its validity. The senses are ever changing and yet, science assumes a unity behind the changing senses. Under naturalism there is no reason to make that assumption except on the basis that is seems to work.
But this whole discussion and naturalism itself does not rest on inductive reasoning, it rests on deduction. Eventually, without deduction, you have no content at all. Throw out deduction you throw out language and math. I can see the point of, say, something like light where our earlier definition was flawed which lead to a apparent contradiction. Once the definition was fixed, the apparent contradiction disappeared. By that situation is entirely different from this situation. This situation deals with the very nature of the naturalistic hypothesis and the fact that it depends on fundamental principles which, not that it can't explain, but that it explicitly excludes from its metaphysic. If I start with naturalism, I end with determinism. there is not way around that chain. Its not a case of observation purifying definitions; its a case of the possible vs. the impossible.
But looking at it philosophically, from outside, so to speak, why is there nothing rather than something is an equally valid question. After all, either nothing or something has to exist. Why is one more likely than the other?
Because in space/time nothing is an exact amount and our universe isn't that precise at the elementary particle level.I guess what I am trying to say is that wondering why there is something other than nothing is a bit silly. Even if there was nothing, the question would still be why? (I know that it could not be asked, but philsophically it is just as much of a problem).
Science MUST operate under the guise of naturalism; otherwise it tells us nothing. Try building a fridge or heat engine without knowledge of thermodynamics, laws which were derived from experience experience derived from our senses which, as I showed above, must be given to us by natural things. Naturalism may in the end be an "assumption", but the ONLY logical one.
There is to be no science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence in the order of things. Science could only be created by men who already held this belief, and therefore, the original source was pre-scientific . . .
As the particular is studied in the hope that it might throw light onto the general.
It (science) has remained predominantly an anti-rationalistic movement, based upon a naive faith. What reasoning it has required has been borrowed from mathematics following the deductive method
Science is agreeable through the power it gives in manipulating our environment . . . It is disagreeable because it creates a determinism which seems to lesson human power
If all is cause and effect, so is our mental processes and our rationality.
If we emphasize the fact that our belief in causality and induction is irrational, we must infer that we do not know science to be true, that it may, at any moment, cease to give us control over the environment . . . If we admit the claims of the scientific method, we cannot avoid the conclusion that causality and induction are applicable to human volition.
The outcome seems to be that, though the rational justification of science in inadequate, there is no method for severing what is pleasant for what is unpleasant . . . we can do so by refusing to face the logic of the situation, but, if so, we shall dry up the impulse to scientific discovery at its source, which is the desire to understand the world.
Didnt Russell emphasize totally insane ideas that were in no way true also?
I dont agree with this statement. Not being a metaphysical naturalist doesn't impede my application of the laws of thermodynamics one bit. And, again, there are things I see in existence upon which naturalism depends but which naturalism can't account for. Since we seem to be going in circles, Im going to phone a friend. My friend, to ensure your consideration of his points, will be an atheist. I introduce Mr. Bertrand Russell.
This is my basic point about the metaphysical origins of science proper. now, here he deals with my point that science has become anti-metaphysical despite the fact that it needs metaphysics.
If you abandon the metaphysics, the belief in an ordered universe becomes faith. Now Russell talks about the difficulty I have been trying to point out . . .
Russell continues . . .
Russell concludes
This is my point.
Quotes taken from the Will To Doubt by Bertrand Russell
I also do not agree that determinism is disagreeable. It may be disagreeable to the vast majority of humans, but I do not have a problem with it.
With regard to causality, can you paraphrase what you think Russell is saying here, as I do not really know.]
Why does there have to be an origin to natural law? And if there does: how would we ever know there is one or what it is? We can't empirically test for something that would create nature without making arbitrary claims about what the evidence should look like, because we really have no way of knowing. What reason do we have for assuming an origin for natural laws in the first place?
Silenus,
I'm very familiar with Bertrand Russell. You're right about natural law: it cannot explain itself. What you don't seem to realize is this: your answer of "God" is no better than my answer of "tooth fairy" or "Santa" or "<insert name of mythical being here>". Why does there have to be an origin to natural law? And if there does: how would we ever know there is one or what it is? We can't empirically test for something that would create nature without making arbitrary claims about what the evidence should look like, because we really have no way of knowing. What reason do we have for assuming an origin for natural laws in the first place?
We can assume that there was an origin for natural law and the universe itself. The reason for this is that inifinity does not exist in in this reality, as David Hilbert, for example, asserts.
Because of this and the fact that we live in a cause-effect universe, we know that there must be an initial cause.
Therefore, the origin of natural law is contingent upon some sort of inifinite being that existed outside of our time with characteristics that are consistent with most concepts of what "god' (general term) is. He would have created natural law from the "outside" if you will.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?