Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This is often the last resort of theists. How does an atheist go about answering it?

The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a nonsense type of question. There is no why to the universe, it just is -- existence exists. It is the theist who has got it wrong in thinking or believing that the universe as such had to have a cause greater than the universe. A rational man doesn't seek that type of an answer because he realizes that existence exists and only existence exists. In other words, just because you can form a question doesn't mean that the question is a legitimate question. The universe exists -- that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There just is."

Ask "why not?"

Point out any answer presumes a cause beyond the something; the trick question assumes the answer it wants. It is also an infinite regress etc. etc. ...

We know there is something and that explaining something does not change what it is, therefore the answer is not necessary to decide anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is often the last resort of theists. How does an atheist go about answering it?

"I don't know."

Then add:

"Neither do you."

Someone who asks such a question clearly has the motive to legitimize the fantasies of ancient goat herders through junk philosophy. Imagine - thinking that the cause of the universe is unknown, therefore the god of their choice must exist. Incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question as stated contains an implicit contradiction. "Why" is a request for a cause. A cause is something that exists. Existence is the total of everything that exists. Asking for a cause of everything that exists is a request for something (the cause) that exists, but which is not part of the total of everything that exists. Questions incorporating contradictions are invalid and can be rejected on that basis.

You also have to understand the distinction between a rationally valid answer and an answer that will satisfy the committed theist. The above is the former but not the latter. The simple truth is that a serious theist is someone who, by accepting faith as a valid means of acquiring knowledge, has already committed themselves to rejecting rational arguments whose conclusions they find emotionally uncongenial. You will never be able to change the mind of such a person through rational argument because they've already rejected reason as the final authority of belief. That doesn't make them right, it just makes them not worth arguing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very basic error of the question, "Why is there something rather rather than nothing?" is that it treats nothing (no-thing) as if it were an alternative kind of something or existence, therefore it is inherently equivical. What would it mean to have nothing prior to something? Moreover the very concept of nothing is logically dependent upon something. Ayn wrote in her epistemology book,

"Non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact, it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relationship, i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist. (One can arrive at the concept “absence” starting from the concept “presence,” in regard to some particular existent(s); one cannot arrive at the concept “presence” starting from the concept “absence,” with the absence including everything.) Non-existence as such is a zero with no sequence of numbers to follow it, it is the nothing, the total blank."

She described this as the Reification of Zero,

"A vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists, is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. It consists of regarding “nothing” as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being. E.g., “Nothingness is prior to being.” (Sartre)—“Human finitude is the presence of the not in the being of man.” (William Barrett)—“Nothing is more real than nothing.” (Samuel Beckett)—”Das Nichts nichtet” or “Nothing noughts.” (Heidegger). “Consciousness, then, is not a stuff, but a negation. The subject is not a thing, but a non-thing. The subject carves its own world out of Being by means of negative determinations. Sartre describes consciousness as a ‘noughting nought’ (néant néantisant). It is a form of being other than its own: a mode ‘which has yet to be what it is, that is to say, which is what it is, that is to say, which is what it is not and which is not what it is.’” (Hector Hawton, The Feast of Unreason, London: Watts & Co., 1952, p. 162.)

(The motive? “Genuine utterances about the nothing must always remain unusual. It cannot be made common. It dissolves when it is placed in the cheap acid of mere logical acumen.” Heidegger.)"

Maybe some of you are already familiar with this, but there is a joke about Sartre that I think helps elucidate the absurdity if the basic existentialist premise:

Sartre walks into a cafe and is seated by his waitress. She asks him if she can start him off with anything to drink. To which Sartre replies, "Yes i'd like a cup of coffee with sugar, but no cream." Then the waitress go to fill his order. She returns to the table minutes later and says, "I'm sorry Mr. Sartre we're all out of cream, would you like no milk instead?"

Pretty funny

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all been stated pretty clearly, but I'll point two things out. The answer to the arbitrary and nonsense question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not answered by "God" or "the divine", which is what is being implied. The answer to a ridiculous arbitrary nonsense question isn't "An all-powerful force I can't define or understand and that doesn't exist". It doesn't have an answer.

There is a point where you have to ask why you're even entertaining debate with someone throwing this out. If they feel compelled to convert you why are you even participating. If you're doing it because you feel the need to convert them, why should you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI, I discussed the Cosmological Argument in some depth in two recent podcasts: Episode #6 and Episode #9.

You can find the full list of my podcasts, including discussions of other arguments for the existence of God, here: Rationally Selfish Radio

Totally Brilliant work Diana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a nonsense type of question. There is no why to the universe, it just is -- existence exists.

"Why" is the question for the cause of something.

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is equivalent to the question "What is the cause of existence?", i.e., "What entity brought existence about?" i.e., "What existence caused existence?" which implicates that A = non-A.

No in-depth discussion necessary because the question itself implicates a contradiction :D

Edited by Clawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what I'm sure is the 2043249th time seeing this phrase---

For the fact, the REALITY, that "EXISTENCE EXISTS." It's there. The next time someone you come across poses the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" the answer should be a rhetorical question: "How can there be nothing rather than something?" Think about the absurdity of the question we were asked. As Homer Simpson would say... "Dohhh! Uh... because I said so" would be the typical response from anyone (scary enough, a LARGEEEEEE ass portion of society as we know it today) who has lived under a rock of non-existent existence for the entirety of their life (insert non-absolute prattle here; ie life "here on earth", etc.)

DISCLAIMER: I do not disagree with anyone who has a faith is a higher power, I think it is wonderful to believe in something beyond what we can PERCEIVE, but to live your life in expectation of an intangible faith-- that no one has been able to prove exists-- and nothing more is as good as being 6-feet-under. This could lead to a complete tangent, so I will have to start a new topic so I don't start the tangent here. Believing in something beyond what we can physically perceive in the present moment could be a GOAL, a direction, a PURPOSE of one's existence. A goal, direction, or purpose of one's non-existence, beyond physical reality, is unrealistic, unproven, lazy, and wasteful unless one has accomplished all goals necessary while LIVING (ehh, still questionable as to whether goals just STOP completely or whether one is accomplished and another begins to be sought.)

Existence exists, my friends. Aristotle taught us logic, that "A" can not be "Non-A"--- we are here; if we weren't, the question could never have even have existed--- the words in the question could not have existed--- "nothingness" can never replace "something"--- as long as something was created, nothing can NOT exist.

If the real question is why are we here, consider how far the human intellect has come--- the technology, the thoughts, ideas--- our history. We started out WITHOUT dialect and vocabulary, and throughout time man has CREATED words, phrases, into LIFE. Words and vocabulary, art translated in language, any DIALECT was created POST-"man"... Men were the cause, language was the effect. We can only go as far back in time as science permits us. The truth EXISTED, it created us, but THEORY can only take us so far back. The reality of what existed prior to us is incapable of answering at the present time; science has yet to advance far enough to be able to retrace far enough back.

Theory, baby, theory. Whatever you choose to be yours, make sure it is backed up-- I'm gonna need you to PROVE it to me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is wonderful to believe in something beyond what we can PERCEIVE,

A.) It's not something beyond what we can perceive. I can physically perceive that there is nothing supernatural in existence at the moment. So can you.

B.) Why would it be wonderful to believe that there is?

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A.) It's not something beyond what we can perceive. I can physically perceive that there is nothing supernatural in existence at the moment. So can you.

B.) Why would it be wonderful to believe that there is?

I understand what you are saying--- do you understand what I am? To BELIEVE that something exists beyond and outside of our control. The universe-- infinity. How far can science take us until we can perceive ALL that there is? There is always going to be a neverending quest to PERCEIVE what we currently cannot. It's a wonderful thing to believe in something more, just not yet have the scientific knowledge to take us there, above and BEYOND WHAT WE CAN PERCEIVE.

In the case of religion, no--- it is NOT wonderful to believe and base your life upon some unknowable "higher power" and live to die--- MAYBE to see it in the future. I'm talking now, here on earth. It is wonderful for myself to believe that there is something beyond what I can perceive, here on earth, not in the "noumenal" world, and the continual quest for knowledge and discovery is a wonderful thing. Neverending discovery, infinite possibilities, is exciting. If we l,ook at that even deeper, we could even say that believing in something, that something is POSSIBLE yet not discovered, is a pretty strong basis for life as we know it. Having set a goal and moving toward it, believing in nothing else except that it is possible to bring into reality through YOUR creation, YOUR mind, YOUR belief in your MIND, painting a picture when your eyes are closed and making it a reality through nothing more than your vision. It's a belief beyond what you can perceive in physical reality, at the moment--- but that little belief in something is the motor within a person to create reality.

Am I babbling? I tend to do this quite frequently--- let me know if I'm not making any sense, seriously. I love learning from others and listening to how preposterous or on point I sound. Exercising the brain among others who actually exercise theirs---- ahhh 'tis I beautiful thing. Thank you, Objectivism Online. :)

The start of everything

"Beginning in 1917, Einstein and others applied general relativity to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the big bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called big bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so. One of the most stunning successes of the big bang theory is the prediction that the universe is approximately 10 billion years old, a result obtained from the rate at which distant galaxies are flying away from each other. This prediction accords with the age of the universe as obtained from very local methods, such as the dating of radioactive rocks on Earth.

According to the big bang theory, the universe may keep expanding forever, if its inward gravity is not sufficiently strong to counterbalance the outward motion of galaxies, or it may reach a maximum point of expansion and then start collapsing, growing denser and denser, gradually disrupting galaxies, stars, planets, people, and eventually even individual atoms. Which of these two fates awaits our universe can be determined by measuring the density of matter versus the rate of expansion. Much of modern cosmology, including the construction of giant new telescopes such as the new Keck telescope in Hawaii, has been an attempt to measure these two numbers with better and better accuracy. With the present accuracy of measurement, the numbers suggest that our universe will keep expanding forever, growing colder and colder, thinner and thinner.

General relativity may be the biggest leap of the scientific imagination in history. Unlike many previous scientific breakthroughs, such as the principle of natural selection, or the discovery of the physical existence of atoms, general relativity had little foundation upon the theories or experiments of the time. No one except Einstein was thinking of gravity as equivalent to acceleration, as a geometrical phenomenon, as a bending of time and space. Although it is impossible to know, many physicists believe that without Einstein, it could have been another few decades or more before another physicist worked out the concepts and mathematics of general relativity. "

======================

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you are making sense, but I think you have to draw a line between believing in something that we do not yet have evidence or proof for (as in making a theory or postulation about something yet unknown) versus believing in something that is beyond perception out of feeling or desire. "Beyond perception" literally means not just unknown, but unknowable, so it wouldn't make sense to call something that science hasn't "taken us to" as beyond perception necessarily, unless we're talking about the supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one has to be careful of phrases such as "beyond perception" because it can be misleading. We know a great deal about reality that we cannot directly perceive, such as, say, radio waves or gravitational fields and such, but this is not the same thing at all as a religionists stating that God is beyond perception. For every scientific theory, which is the world conceptualized, there is evidence that one can point to and say if we integrate this evidence then one must come to the conclusion of this theory. One cannot say that about God because there is no evidence whatsoever for stating that something exists that is more than that which exists. Yes, we make a great many discoveries that were not immediately evident to the senses, but all of these discoveries were made possible because of actual evidence that was available to the senses as understood by a conceptual consciousness. With the invention of the telescope, galaxies are not beyond perception, because we can see them on a photographic plate. Likewise, with the advent of radio, radio waves are not beyond perception because we can perceive the causes when we listen to a radio. Saying something is beyond perception is to deny that we have evidence, so don't fall into that trap. There is perceptually available data for things like radio waves, electric fields, gravitational fields, and radiation, even though we cannot directly perceive these things, we can perceive their effects, and thereby deduce that such things exist. Having a conceptual consciousness means we are not limited to what we directly perceive, but we still need the evidence that something is there. In other words, before you can be justified to make that conceptual leap, one needs evidence in favor of one's conceptualization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...