Why is there something instead of nothing?

[grasping the after wind]

Actually, the brain does generate electrical signals. The human body, if I recall correctly, runs on roughly the same amount of electricity as a 60 watt lightbulb.

Incandescent , Fluorescent or LED?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Incandescent , Fluorescent or LED?

Incandescent probably.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Incandescent probably.

Better ban them then. Or has the brain already been banned? Sometimes it seems to have been. The good news may be that if one refuses to use one's brain for anything other than storing information about celebrities' lifestyles it might not take all that much carbon emitting energy so the carbon footprint of humanity may be dropping precipitously in terms of usage involving the brain.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Better ban them then. Or has the brain already been banned? Sometimes it seems to have been. The good news may be that if one refuses to use one's brain for anything other than storing information about celebrities' lifestyles it might not take all that much carbon emitting energy so the carbon footprint of humanity may be dropping precipitously in terms of usage involving the brain.

-_- most of the brain is continuously active

 

[Eudaimonist]

You don’t think that is the slightest bit persuasive?

No, I don't think that the Bible is the slightest bit persuasive about its theological claims.

However, the Bible isn't a work of philosophy, or even of science, so it doesn't even try to convince. Its purpose is quite different.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

-_- most of the brain is continuously active

Activity is not synonymous with utility.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You say that we die and pass into non existence, and NOTHING MATTERS.

You are confusing atheism with nihilism. I do not say that "nothing matters".

Maybe your right, maybe I’m right.

Why are you so resolute that you are right?

I wouldn't say that I am "resolute". Rather, the evidence just doesn't support any sort of personal survival of death. It looks like wishful thinking, and wishes don't make reality.

Don’t you at least hope that you are wrong?

That depends on what sort of afterlife exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PsychoSarah]

Activity is not synonymous with utility.

My point was thinking less wouldn't equate to any notable difference in energy use.

 

[BL2KTN]

People really need to look up your religion icon. You get mistaken for an atheist so much.

Non-believer equals atheist to so many of these people. They can't fathom that the god they worship is vile compared to what modern humanity could conceive of a divine being.

 

[grasping the after wind]

My point was thinking less wouldn't equate to any notable difference in energy use.

You did not think that my point was actually that it would did you? If so, I must be a much worse communicator than I think I am. You did get what I was actually expressing about the way people use their brains didn't you? Don't tell me I have to explain it, Please don't tell me that!

 

[PsychoSarah]

You did not think that my point was actually that it would did you? If so, I must be a much worse communicator than I think I am. You did get what I was actually expressing about the way people use their brains didn't you? Don't tell me I have to explain it, Please don't tell me that!

Sorry, I do have autism. My theory of mind is too impaired to get subtlety, you are going to need to explain it

 

[PsychoSarah]

Non-believer equals atheist to so many of these people. They can't fathom that the god they worship is vile compared to what modern humanity could conceive of a divine being.

I can't fathom why you disliking said deity is a reason not to believe it exists. True, it is a reason not to want to worship it, but I dislike many things I know are real.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Non-believer equals atheist to so many of these people. They can't fathom that the god they worship is vile compared to what modern humanity could conceive of a divine being.

What could be more vile than a god that creates a universe and leaves its inhabitants alone to ruin themselves while that god amuses itself with other things? I can't think of anything more vile myself other than what modern humanity might decide to come up with as a divine being.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My personal view of the "why is there something rather than nothing?" question is that it cannot be answered.

I don't mean that we don't know the answer, and therefore can't answer the question. I'm saying that the question itself is faulty.

If one asks why A exists, one is asking for some existing cause and conditions from which A emerges. When one knows the existence of the right cause and conditions, one can provide an explanation for the existence of A. One can answer the why.

The problem is that when asking why is there something rather than nothing at all, it becomes impossible to answer that why. There is no cause or condition that is not itself something, and something cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing at all, because one must now explain the prior something.

In other words, if B must explain A, then one can't answer the question why is there something rather than nothing, because A (any something) must be explained by some B (which is also a something). Now one must explain B in terms of some C in order to explain the something of B. And on it goes into infinity. At no point does one get an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.

So, all one can do is accept that there is something rather than nothing, and that there is no possible answer to that question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

My personal view of the "why is there something rather than nothing?" question is that it cannot be answered.

I don't mean that we don't know the answer, and therefore can't answer the question. I'm saying that the question itself is faulty.

If one asks why A exists, one is asking for some existing cause and conditions from which A emerges. When one knows the existence of the right cause and conditions, one can provide an explanation for the existence of A. One can answer the why.

The problem is that when asking why is there something rather than nothing at all, it becomes impossible to answer that why. There is no cause or condition that is not itself something, and something cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing at all, because one must now explain the prior something.

In other words, if B must explain A, then one can't answer the question why is there something rather than nothing, because A (any something) must be explained by some B (which is also a something). Now one must explain B in terms of some C in order to explain the something of B. And on it goes into infinity. At no point does one get an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.

So, all one can do is accept that there is something rather than nothing, and that there is no possible answer to that question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Correct.

 

[Done222]

Ah, the limitations of rational thought.

It seems that reality is as high above our thoughts as Heaven is above the Earth.

 

[BL2KTN]

I can't fathom why you disliking said deity is a reason not to believe it exists. True, it is a reason not to want to worship it, but I dislike many things I know are real.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it is a deity influenced by ancient cultures. We can see the influences in it, we can see the history of it, etc. I suppose there is a possibility that the creator of the cosmos is something I wouldn't like if I knew everything about it. I suspect it is less anthropomorphic, however, and probably something that I neither like nor dislike. Maybe I'll be surprised, though, and the creator of the cosmos will turn out to be a wonderful being. Or... maybe it will never reveal itself at all.

We'll find out (maybe). =)

What could be more vile than a god that creates a universe and leaves its inhabitants alone to ruin themselves while that god amuses itself with other things? I can't think of anything more vile myself other than what modern humanity might decide to come up with as a divine being.

Ever left Sim City running without you?

Seriously, though, a god that rapes, murders, commands infanticide, hides real evidence of himself, and sets people on fire for trillions of years because they couldn't believe he was real... that god is much, MUCH, worse than one that walks away from the keyboard after typing "bang".

 

[BL2KTN]

Ah, the limitations of rational thought.

It seems that reality is as high above our thoughts as Heaven is above the Earth.

You're not going to apologize for publicly lying about me in a way everyone can see, are you?

 

[Done222]

You're not going to apologize for publicly lying about me in a way everyone can see, are you?

You sounded like an atheist, and so I mistook you as an atheist with this statement:

"You say that we die and pass into non existence, and NOTHING MATTERS."

I acknowledged my mistake and that should be sufficient. I will not apologize because I don't believe calling someone an atheist is that much of an offense.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My personal view of the "why is there something rather than nothing?" question is that it cannot be answered.

I don't mean that we don't know the answer, and therefore can't answer the question. I'm saying that the question itself is faulty.

If one asks why A exists, one is asking for some existing cause and conditions from which A emerges. When one knows the existence of the right cause and conditions, one can provide an explanation for the existence of A. One can answer the why.

The problem is that when asking why is there something rather than nothing at all, it becomes impossible to answer that why. There is no cause or condition that is not itself something, and something cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing at all, because one must now explain the prior something.

In other words, if B must explain A, then one can't answer the question why is there something rather than nothing, because A (any something) must be explained by some B (which is also a something). Now one must explain B in terms of some C in order to explain the something of B. And on it goes into infinity. At no point does one get an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.

So, all one can do is accept that there is something rather than nothing, and that there is no possible answer to that question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Perhaps pure nothingness was never a real state of affairs. How could we know? All that we are familiar with is somethingness, and even that we struggle to understand. The question appears insoluble, or perhaps it is misguided.