Existence

[Philosophy Now]

Barbara Smoker probes why there is something rather than nothing.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Existence

[jackles]

sorry to repeat but the uncaused cause is obviouly nonlocality.nonlocality causing locality.this being true then the nonlocality shows up in the local event as all forms of relativity .including emotional relativity emotions being brain representations of consciousness.consciousness and object relativity being then one in the same event.

[jackles]

it means the observer is in reality absolute existance.and as such is everybody.got to stop judging then.

[jackles]

did existance as nothing will an expression of its self as something into existance.is the big bang a negative positive diferential of nothing

[owl of Minerva]

There is irony in the title of this article: Existence. In Vedic philosophy the definition of God is Existence. The answer to the question what caused God is answered by the statement in this article: "Existence itself cannot have a cause."

[VVilliam]

There is irony in the title of this article: Existence. In Vedic philosophy the definition of God is Existence. The answer to the question what caused God is answered by the statement in this article: "Existence itself cannot have a cause."

It is a fairly old article [2014] in which the greater part of it is bitching about theists while praising atheism. Perhaps Barbara has grown up and away from that position since then? [become agnostic] One can only hope.

Outspoken ex-theist atheists seem to move their whole psyche from one camp to the other and with that attitude they continue to judge those not like them with petty insult, spout a great deal of nothing in particular and purr away to themselves - content enough that their position [commonly described as "lacking belief in God(s)] is the strongest one an individual could possibly hope to hold.

The proof is in the details of the article. There was little real requirement for her to wander from the topic into disparaging theism while glorifying atheism and waste space with her ranting. Perhaps an 'article' cannot be an article, if there are not enough words?

It seems more an article on how atheists rely upon theists to trigger their desire to vent about theism.

If I were an editor, I would send the article back to her, and it would look something like the following;

"Why is there something rather than nothing?” mathematician Leibniz, asked three centuries ago.
The question of existence, there are only two possibilities – something existing, or nothing existing – and the evident fact is that things do exist. Since it is impossible, by definition, to encounter anything behind the totality of existence, existence itself cannot have a cause. The question why there is something rather than nothing is therefore unanswerable."

One paragraph does not make an article of course, but the paragraph essentially gives us the best possible impression of Barbara's opinion, in the most succinct manner.

All the anti-theist rhetoric Barbara indulged in to flesh out her article wasn't required in order for her to tell us her opinion. Unless of course it is the only reason why she can reach the conclusion she did...but I fail to see how that extra information makes the slightest bit of difference...

In that, I have to disagree with her opinion.

Why is there something rather than nothing is not unanswerable. The answer is that there is something, because nothing doesn't exist.

Of course, one is free to show me the evidence of nothing, but until one does, my answer will suffice.

[surreptitious57]

It is not that nothing does not exist but that it cannot exist [ even a so called absolute vacuum contains something ]
A true absolute vacuum cannot physically exist because if it did it would be something and so could not be absolute

[VVilliam]

It is not that nothing does not exist but that it cannot exist

Exactly!

So that answers the question the anti-theist [Barbara The Atheist] claimed couldn't be answered. I hope this gets back to her and , if she hasn't already - she allows herself to finally be Agnostic. If it helps,[Barbara] it is not a fence the Agnostic perches precariously upon, but rather a mile high and wide wall created by the joint efforts of atheistic and theistic bickering over the centuries. [One can see one's house from up here. ]

One can also see movement lurking in the shadows at the base of either side of said wall. But the sun shines gloriously from up here! Please do think about joining us! {Throws a rope down]...

[AlexW]

Why is there something rather than nothing is not unanswerable. The answer is that there is something, because nothing doesn't exist.

Of course, one is free to show me the evidence of nothing, but until one does, my answer will suffice.

Lets look at this from a different perspective:

Is "nothing" the same as "no thing"?
Is "something" the same as "some thing"?
If no, then what is the difference between something/nothing and "some thing"/"no thing"?
If yes, then the question arises: Do things (separate entities) truly exist?
Meaning: Do they have their own, separate existence?
Or: Are they dependent on its opposite, on the conceptual/dualistic framework of thought and are as such only "thought into" existence?
What if separate things actually do not exist outside of our ideas/beliefs of things existing?

As I see it, "nothing" exists conceptually, just like "something" exists conceptually (in thought world) but existence/reality/God itself neither exists nor does it not exist - it is "prior/before" all conceptual ideas of existence and non-existence.

[VVilliam]

Why is there something rather than nothing is not unanswerable. The answer is that there is something, because nothing doesn't exist.

Of course, one is free to show me the evidence of nothing, but until one does, my answer will suffice.

Lets look at this from a different perspective:

Is "nothing" the same as "no thing"?
Is "something" the same as "some thing"?


If no, then what is the difference between something/nothing and "some thing"/"no thing"?
If yes, then the question arises: Do things (separate entities) truly exist?

Before the questions you present can be answered with 'yes' or 'no' one will have to present examples of what it is you are asking. At present the questions make no sense.

Meaning: Do they have their own, separate existence?
Or: Are they dependent on its opposite, on the conceptual/dualistic framework of thought and are as such only "thought into" existence?
What if separate things actually do not exist outside of our ideas/beliefs of things existing?

The meaning as presented, is not adequate and requires being expanded upon.

As I see it, "nothing" exists conceptually, just like "something" exists conceptually (in thought world) but existence/reality/God itself neither exists nor does it not exist - it is "prior/before" all conceptual ideas of existence and non-existence.

Lets focus on the way you see 'nothing' so that I might begin to get the gist of what you are trying to communicate.

How do you 'see' nothing, conceptually? Describe the conception for us, if you can. Not the process...we know that involves 'the minds eye projection/screen' but tell us what it is your minds eye is seeing.

[Dontaskme]

Barbara Smoker probes why there is something rather than nothing.

Nothing exists.

= Non-duality.

Why Non-duality? Is the one question to all our answers.

[AlexW]

we know that involves 'the minds eye projection/screen'

What is a minds eye projection/screen?
Are you talking about imagination?

Why is it so hard to answer the question:
Is nothing the same as no thing?
I am asking for your opinion - if possible based on your actual experience - that’s all.

[VVilliam]

Why is it so hard to answer the question:
Is nothing the same as no thing?
I am asking for your opinion - if possible based on your actual experience - that’s all.

It is hard to answer any question which does not provide something of its own clarity.

The best I can do is answer that the lettering is the same and in the same order, but that there is a gap between the 'o' and the 't' so it appears to be different.

Do the two ways of presenting the concept in coded symbology make what each of the words are describing something different from the other?

I do not know.

What I do know is that the word Barbara uses in her article is the word 'nothing'. The article mentions something but not no thing.

I know in your reply to my post your state "Lets look at this from a different perspective" so I am asking you to expand upon your use of the question by explaining what you mean by 'no thing and nothing.'

Generally when it comes to the use of semantics, such often is used to distract so I always ask what people mean when they bring this type of thing to the table.

If there is a different perspective, just explain to us what that is... - as I wrote - I cannot give a 'yes' or a 'no' answer to your question as it sits right now, because it doesn't make sense to me. Which is why I asked you to give an example or two...

[VVilliam]

Barbara Smoker probes why there is something rather than nothing.

Nothing exists.

= Non-duality.

Why Non-duality? Is the one question to all our answers.

Does the question have an answer?

[-1-]

Barbara Smoker probes why there is something rather than nothing.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Existence

So there is this "thing" that has complete knowledge why there is something and not nothing.

All we have to do to make the "thing" spit out the knowledge and confess the truth, is to probe it. We probe it with painful electrical shocks delivered by electrical probes. Or we make it sit through a few Wagner operas. Or we kick the living crap out of it.

Eventually this "thing", if we probe it enough long and enough painfully, will give up information. That is the day when we finally will learn: why there is something instead of nothing.