Why is there something rather than nothing?
How do various religions and philosophical systems explain this? For example, the ones that deal with a certain perfect, supreme entity, how do they explain the creation of an imperfect world out of it?
Christians generally believe that since humanity abandoned God, God has decided to allow imperfections in the world to show humanity that they need them.
God is basically a gigantic bitch who acts like a jealous girlfriend throughout the entire bible
>>364471
they need him*
1 and 0
1=existence
0=non-existence
if there's something there's everything causality is a metaphysical law, existence explains itself, it exists because it exists, if it didn't nothing would have existed and you'd have a 0,metaphorically speaking.
>>364487
That's not "Why"
![Friedrich_Hegel_mit_Studenten_Lithographie_F_Kugler[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fi1VETT.jpg "Friedrich_Hegel_mit_Studenten_Lithographie_F_Kugler[1].jpg")
>>364487
Billion of years of evolution, thousands of years of human struggle, and history ends by some anon shitposting on a Taiwanese porcelain doll conference about why there's something instead of nothing in a way that would make Derrida and Lacan blush.
>>364494
>assigning meaning to anything
existence most likely doesn't have any intentions, there is no "why"
As a Germanic pagan as far as I can tell our religion doesn't ask why in that sense. It's far more concerned with governing society and keeping reality working. What's left to us doesn't give us a good vision of why reality exists beyond that it does
>>364494
why is an exclusive question to conscious beings, how replaces it in places where the answer is objective, to ask why existence exists, is to assume something conscious made it for a reason and you want to know what it is, never spoke to the creator of this metaphysical existence so I can't answer for him.. I can tell you a theory for how though and it's because their were only two options and we exist so that's what you have.
>>364472
If God has no physical body then human concepts of 'male' and 'female' are surely inapplicable, and so it follows that 'he', 'she', and 'they' are all equally valid pronouns to use. (Using 'it' might be a topic of dispute.
You could think of it as a test
As we know in the christian sense God grants free will in a world of temptation
A test of our faith and fortitude to see if we are fit to live in his kingdom
I suppose that is one explanation
>>364498
thanks I try
>>364506
>As a Germanic pagan
...why
>>364516
You know what I've just realised what I wrote answers why in a sense but not in a complete sense.
I guess this is where some people say we are an experiment.
We are a little project of a god maybe and he gave us the gift of life
but still it doesn't say why he didn't just give us the gift of life in the perfect realm...
I'm not sure I can answer
>>364516
If he's omniscient as Christians generally hold then why does he need to test us? Surely 'all-knowing' includes 'knowing the degree of moral fortitude and faith of each person'.
As a pantheist I believe We created Ourselves.
>>364522
Because that's the religion he believes in, I imagine.
>>364523
you are confusing how and why
>>364537
If you don't want to get metaphysical, they're same
>>364544
I think the whole point of this thread is 'getting metaphysical'.
>>364536
And that's why Plotinus railed against most Gnostic sects.
>>364522
Because I was bringing a differant viewpoint pagans tend to be less concerned with the why and actually living meaningful lives.
>>364524
He gave us a perfect realm at first and then we were cursed because of Adam and Eve. I guess god decided he would have to test our faith before he let's us back in to the garden
>>364529
Are you saying that if a god knows the future then the future is non-determinate?
Maybe if you think of it like this
the christian God is all knowing but perhaps bound by a nature described to us in the bible
A knowing of the future does not negate a free will
As to WHY he needs to test us and we can't just go to heaven, IDK man.
>>364573
Ahhhhhh
Of course
Original sin completely slipped my mind
>>364574
As a christian I thank you for giving a some what sound answer to a question I have asked for a while but no one seemed to explain
>>364574
>A knowing of the future does not negate a free will
Sorry, what? If God knows the future, the surely that means the future is already determined. If it's not determined there's nothing for him to know. And if the future is already determined, then that precludes most definitions of 'free will'. I suppose you could say that even God doesn't know the future because it hasn't happened yet, though.
>>364523
what sort of description do you expect?
"to create a universe you need to.. "
shit doesn't work that way, we are not capable of currently understanding what created the physical universe, we can theorize about explaining how the universe exists as it does today since space-time began as a framework with the big bang, but we can't know what was before the laws in which we exist existed and we can't know for sure what happened that long ago, you want to talk about conscious metaphysical beings dreaming us into existence go ahead I don't see evidence for any of that
>>364604
Whatever you choose to do is what is known. If you would have chosen something different, that is what would have been known.
It's kind of a hard idea to visualize
but you think the choice is still YOURS to make
You can do this experiment with a friend, give them the choice between $10 and $20
Surely you know what they will choose but it was their choice.
>>364464
I dunno lol, and I guess I never will.
Parmenides was pretty spot on though, but then again so was Heraclitus.
>>364649
And suppose someone tries that experiment on me and I pick the $10 just to be perverse? Not to mention, I fail to see how I can be choosing anything if it's already known what I'll 'choose'.
>>364664
Sure of course there will be people who choose the $10 for whatever reason but that's not the point of that experiment.
it was to get you started on thinking how it works
If I somehow knew in advance you were going to make a choice it would have no effect on you making that choice whatsoever.
>>364664
Think of it like that, all the information that make you choose a certain decision in a set time exists because of causality and what happened before, theoretically every time you had to choose in that exact same time you would choose the same, thus, theoretically it would be able to predict the future if we could translate all the information in the universe including everything that each person on the planet think and feel at a set time and make an equation that gives you what happens in the future.
>>364678
My point is that if I pick the $10 then the experiment likely did not expect beforehand that I would pick it. Furthermore, once they've realized that some people may take the $10 they don't know for certain what any one person will definitely take.
>>364690
That seems pretty incompatible with 'free will' if it's true, unless perhaps I have an overly-narrow understanding of 'free will'.
>>364692
Yeah yeah yeah I know but it's just a basic example to set your mind to see it from a certain standpoint please don't read too much into that
>>364661
yeah somehow they both have convincing systems despite being opposites.
parmenides was definitely better at abstract organization of confusing concepts, while heraclitus had a knack for relating the ethereal to the mundane via good analogies .
>>364696
Yeah that was my point of showing why free will is an illusion in a way.
We are like animals except animal souls disappears with their biological death our never will because of our God-like image.
That's why we depend on God, without the safety and peace of heaven we are forever lost on ourselves... our souls are powerless and have no reason to exist without the Creator.
>>364724
yes yes that's fine but we are trying to explain to this anon how it would work in the christian sense or how it is compatible with omnipotence
A debate on free will existing is something we could definitely do though but maybe in another thread and around this time tomorrow perhaps
Something will always come from nothing because there's nothing stopping something from coming from nothing, like, I don't know, the laws of physics.
>>364827
I'm not sure what you mean.
>>364464
>doesn't remember nothing
Things are better now that there is something.
>>364536
>the wonders of being alive
LMAO
Even then, being one with God and all that jazz far surpasses anything the material world could offer, so the demiurge was being a faggot either way.
Buddhists believe (the current understanding of) existence (something/nothing) is an illusion coming from ignorance or rather inability to understand the true nature of reality.
We have to look at the common understanding of the word existence first. "Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence." If we take this, then the buddhist will deny this definition of existence. They will counter say the true nature of reality/existence is not understood properly due to our limited sensory and mental faculties. This doesn't mean they don't distinguish between existence, indeed they do. They say there are two (maybe three) axioms for existence of something, both of these go hand in hand. First is change (impermanence), anything subject to change is said to be existing. Second is no-self, or rather things that are said to have exist do not have self-existence. As in, there is no appleness to an apple. There is no humanness to a human. Or a rockness to a rock. A thing exists because of relation to another, not independently. (Also known as Sunyata/dependence arising)
As you can see, this goes against the greek notions of laws of identity and essence that western philosophy understands as and even the hindus understood as.
You can ask, what caused the "first" existence, but a buddhist will say, there is no first cause. As all existence naturally arose in relation to another and the buddhist might say its been way forever. But the things themselves do not exist independently.
As above, the buddha/buddhist dont really care about this aspect of their religion as they deem it unhelpful in freeing themselves from suffering.
I would suggest there is no such thing as "non-existence" or "nothingness", it is an invention of the human mind.
In that sense it is metaphysically impossible for there to be nothing, it's a statement that doesn't make any sense.
It's to no surprise then that there's no physical "nothing" either, and the creation of the universe just sprung from some kind of quantum uncertainty.
And even any religious explanation simultaneously destroys this concept of "nothing" - There is something because God created it, but if you have God you don't have "nothing", so it doesn't answer the question. At best it tells us why there's physical space.
>There is no such thing as nothingness, and zero does not exist. Everything is something. Nothing is nothing.
- Victor Hugo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Various explanations
-Augustinian theodicy: The world was perfect but we fucked it up in Eden. Now we have a blood curse
-Irenaean theodicy: You must know evil to be a complete person
-Free Will Defense: Good cannot exist without a choice to do evil
-Older religions than Christianity: The Gods possess traits of both good and evil
-Zoroastrianism/Satan theory: There is a war between the good God and an evil spirit for what the nature of the world shall be.
-Other ideas
The Finite God Theodicy maintains that God is all-good (omnibenevolent) but not all-powerful (omnipotent).
The Best of all Possible Worlds Theodicy, a traditional theology, argues that the creation is the best of all possible worlds.
The Ultimate Harmony Theodicy justifies evil as leading to “good long-range consequences”.
The Degree of Desirability of a Conscious State Theodicy has been reckoned a “complex theodicy.”[49] It argues that a person’s state is deemed evil only when it is indersirable to the person. However, because God is unable to make a person’s state desirable to the person, the theodic problem does not exist.[50]
The Reincarnation Theodicy believes that people suffer evil because of their wrong-doing in a previous life.
The Contrast Theodicy holds that evil is needed to enable people to appreciate or understand good.
The Warning Theodicy rationalizes evil as God’s warning people to mend their ways.
>>364574
Humanity contains equal amounts of good and evil.
Evil may not enter into heaven
God created earth to sort out the good and evil
>>364464
There is something rather than nothing because there is one necessary and perfect being, God, who is subsistent existence himself. There is imperfection because God, in his wisdom, deigns to allow that evil for the sake of the unique goods he has chosen to bring about through them.
>>364464
"Why" implies an agent with reason for acting. The more legitimate questions is, "How is there something rather than nothing?", in which case I would direct you to science.
>>364572
Being concerned with the why is part of living a meaningful life. It's discovering the why and living in accordance with it which constitutes the meaningful life. Way to fail your telos, heathen.
As far as the free will vs determinism posts ITT
To me, that is a false dichotomy
You still make the choice. Causality causes you to, but it is also what you want to do. You are given the choice to continue living at all times: you could kill yourself whenever you want, but by you are choosing not to do so at all times
You have the power to do anything, within the confines of your own life's circumstances. This means that ability to choose varies greatly from person to person, obviously. Paradoxically, by existing at all, you are imposing your own will on others by becoming a force that contributes to causality. So someone will always find a reason to be upset about another's existence. Really, it is all what you believe. Perception = reality.
Is the universe trying to understand every possible reason that it exists? Perhaps. Plurality, impermanence, and subjectivity seem to be the nature of things.
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
"Nothing" is still something-- but at the same time it is not. To me, "nothing" is a term that describes a state of unlimited potential to be anything. With this definition, it makes sense to me that everything came from nothing. Nothing is everything in a different form, because everything came from it. Everything is nothing in a different form, because it came from it. If you are asking that question, it is because you are a manifestation of the universe that came here to find out one possible conclusion. You are the manifestation of that question, and the rest of your thoughts; thoughts that are echoes of the universes forces. You are here to experience this life and make of it what you will, to see what possible conclusions, if any, can be reached within the confines of such an existence. You are the result of an existential crisis that has been ongoing as long as the universe itself. You may find answers that are satisfactory to you, you may not. You may feel both, or neither, in varying degrees
>>364471
This is completely wrong.
>>364464
Is god the subconscious?
asking for a friend.
when you get black out drunk you are in a state where you have no control over yourself and your subconscious takes over and you have no recollection of your memories, you are in a state of autopilot. how is this the same or different as the religious ideal that there is a mystical aspect that controls your life whilst you are in this state?
Also I use philosophy to learn more not to push my ideals btw.
>>364568
>that's why
Yeah and not because they're actual heretics who claim that neither Jesus nor 'God' are the real god and they also don't believe in the church anyway
also has anyone mentioned Parmenides yet
>>367515
If causality is what makes me do things then determinism is true. It makes no difference that that which I do is that which I want to do.
>>367545
That is your own interpretation of it. You have come to that conclusion that based on valid reasons, but the opposite conclusion would not be invalid, if you believed it.
Does it change anything if every choice is determined? Your life is exactly the same either way-- it's not like suddenly you no longer have feelings, thoughts, or opinions.
You are not here because nothing you do matters-- you are here because everything you do matters so much that it influences the cosmic scale of causality
You are important enough to exist and influence other people
Or maybe you aren't-- believe what you want. I'm not going to argue with you honestly. Like I said, anything you believe is going to be valid from your point of view-- I won't claim to think otherwise, whether I disagree or not
>>367563
Well, I can't even begin to argue with you then.
>>367574
You certainly can, if you choose to. I don't think that arguing has to have the prerequisite of having the potential to convince the other person of your point of view-- I think a lot of the arguments on this site are a testament to that. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, regardless. And who knows, I may even agree with you if you present your case well enough. If you feel no need to do so, then that's fine with me, too.
Also, if you accept that determinism robs you of free will, one could argue that you're not here to make choices; you're here to understand why you've made them, and experience the existence that led to them being made for yourself, to come to your own conclusions
Something popped into existence from nothing. It just randomly happened.
>>367593
For me, free will is nothing more than a contextual or linguistic problem. Asking if we can choose our own actions in general is nonsense, because there is no way to determine the answer without a context. Speaking in one way all the time is not advantageous. In a strictly scientific sense, our actions are determined. However, when speaking socially we say people choose to do things so that they will act in the way we desire, that is, responsibly.
>>367616
>In a strictly scientific sense, our actions are determined
undergrad detected
>>367623
>muh subatomic particles are random because we can't measure them
>>367616
>Asking if we can choose our own actions in general is nonsense, because there is no way to determine the answer without a context
>In a strictly scientific sense, our actions are determined
You seem to contradict yourself. I think you're looking for a context that doesn't exist. Science is not objective. You can't really "prove" free will or determinism with it
>>367642
Most philosophers operate within a nonexistent context, that is, they ask questions in a universal way. But vocabularies are not universal, just as tools are not universal. A hammer cannot do every job.
>Science is not objective. You can't really "prove" free will or determinism with it
And yet scientists continually come to the same conclusions. I do not mean to say that science solves philosophical questions, but that science determines the answers to questions. Philosophy's job is to direct questions to their proper places.
>>367664
Science is just another vocabulary that is not universal
>>367664
>scientists continually come to the same conclusions
this implies that science never advances. the whole point of science is that it is constantly changing as our understanding of the world grows and culture shifts
>>367667
I know, I made the distinction between social and scientific language.
>>367630
>because they're unmeasurable
FTFY.
>>367630
It's actually about that there is a degree of randomness built into the universe: quantum fluctuations.
>>367674
Scientific language still does not determine fact by itself
>>367673
I said continually. Of course the conclusions change, as in scientists continually come to the same conclusions.
>>367664
Science isn't in the business of proving things. That's what mathematicians are for.
www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf
>>367678
Science has its own facts. What do you mean?
>>367693
Where the inquiry is newest of course there is disagreement. But nobody debates the laws of thermodynamics anymore.
>>364464
>Why is there something rather than nothing?
THERE IS AS OF YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER
>>364487
actually really fucking logical and true
unfortunately, posted in a meme thread
