Ask afleitch

[bore]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

[bore]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

That’s a vast question, so I don’t know on what basis you’re proposing it. Do you have a clear idea why there is something rather than nothing?

It's a question that has concerned the world's greatest thinkers for thousands of years so I'm not going to pretend that I have the answer.

To me, the dichotomy seems to be that either everything is explainable all the way down, that A because of B because of C.... which is because of X which, like 2+2, explains itself- the God answer (Although I think here the God word has unnecessary human associations). Or, fundamentally the world just doesn't make sense and that there is something rather than nothing is a brute fact - the non God option.

I, personally fall down on the God side. I accept that it's possible that the world is just a brute fact, and, despite it seeming so contingent it  just is, but I think that path gives you a lot of collateral damage. It seems to me when you go down that path you need to abandon reason, and, ultimately, the scientific method.

Now, that's my view but this isn't ask bore

The reason I asked is because despite it looking like there is some sort of law of causality and despite the world looking so contingent, the world exists, and that to me has always been the main intellectual problem with atheism, so I'm curious how you deal with that.

[bore]

Thanks for the reply- thought provoking stuff

When I, and I think most people ask the question, we're not talking temporally. The guy who first formulated The Big Bang Theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaitre said that the theory was irrelevant philosophically speaking, and I think he's been proved right by the recent advances in quantum stuff that shows how the big bang could have started.

To the theist, creation is a continuous act, so it doesn't matter whether the universe is infinite in time or space. That's why Aquinas said it was irrelevant to his arguments if the universe was infinitely old, and someone like Aristotle could argue for a God despite believing in an infinitely old universe.

You're right to point out that as humans we often create our own purpose or assign consciousness to non sentient processes, but I don't see how that's relevant here. Perhaps I could make myself clearer by changing the question to "How is there something rather than nothing?"

I can see how the why can seem sloppily worded, but I don't think it's different to asking why the Earth orbits the sun. Basically I'm not asking for the reason for something to exist but how it's possible, given causality and the seemingly contingent nature of the world.

[bore]

I'm happy to call it a day if you want to

You're right to point out that as humans we often create our own purpose or assign consciousness to non sentient processes, but I don't see how that's relevant here.

Well it sort of is relevant here. My position is that evidentially I can see no reason to believe in the existence of a god as a point in itself, yet even if I was to assume a 'first cause', why should I invest any time in thinking about it? It is not my fault that groups of people have taken it on themselves to declare that there is a god, it has revealed itself and it's plan for you is 'x'. That I believe is assigning consciousness to non sentient processes. There is no evidence to suggest that any 'creator' (of which it could be argued, the Sun is one) is consciously 'doing' anything.

I don't really want to draw this one out. If people's belief in Christianity can be discussed without demanding they show proof for it, I would prefer it people could discuss my own position without trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut

With respect to 'actors' I posted something which i'll re-post below. Just because you seem interested in my position on that.

EDIT: I'll post it to you.

The Christians who use this argument say that once you establish this ground of all being's existence from this it logically follows you get at least some of the attributes (omniscience, omnipotence etc) of what comes to mind when we hear God. I don't know the arguments well enough to say one way or the other whether that's right, but it might be possible to make that link.

Actually though, I think I agree with you that this, while interesting, isn't really important. I've been raised in a very works heavy form of Catholicism so abstract belief in, say, the trinity has never seemed that important to me. I mean, as you'll no doubt be aware, me being Scottish and young, most of my friends are nones (I don't think many of them have actually thought about it enough to definitively say they are atheists or agnostics) and it doesn't bother me one way or the other. I'm certainly not that guy who tries to proselytise to them.