A Modern Version of the Contingency Argument of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

[stretmediq]

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
Modern Deism EXPLAINED
by
Alumno deVerum

The most profound question we can ask is, "why is there something rather than nothing?" Traditionally people have attempted to answer it by postulating a God that was beyond human understanding that created the world for reasons unknown to man. This view however has been challenged by the rise of modern science which suggests the universe began in what has come to be called "the big bang".

In his theory of relativity Albert Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are essentially the same. The cosmos he said is a vast continuum called space/time held together by gravity which causes it to curve. The total energy in the universe depends on how much space/time curves. The theory also showed that the universe is expanding from a point in time in which all energy was compressed into a singularity of infinite density.

An argument presents itself here and some materialistic philosophers who believe the universe has a objective existence and is not contingent on anything else have used this to try to make the connection between existence and non-existence in an effort to explain why there is something rather than nothing. It goes like this: The universe is an energy field. The amount of energy in the field depends on the total curvature of space within it. If there is a zero net curvature because the outward negative push of the expansion cancels out the inward positive pull of gravity, then space is flat overall and thus there should be zero net energy or, in other words, nothing since matter is just a form of energy. But there is a problem.

This argument is basically mathematical in nature and thus subject to the rules of mathematics. And on the surface it seems logical because in mathematics -1+1=0. The problem arises because mathematics also says 0/2=0. That is half of nothing is still nothing. So this argument actually fails because it confuses 0 meaning “nonexistence” with 0 meaning “no difference”. In other words, it is ambiguous. In this case zero obviously means equilibrium, like a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read 0 meaning no difference, but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So all it really does is show how energy can go from a state of potential to the form we see it in around us but it cannot explain why that potential exists.

Also as materialism assumes only material things exist "nothingness" in that philosophy must be absolute because it is the complete absence of material. Since logic says that for something to come from something else there must be a commonality between them and there is no such bridge between "being" and "nothingness" in materialism, as demonstrated by 0/2=0 above, "something" from "nothing" in that philosophy is a nonsequitur and thus impossible.

Some materialists don't see that as a problem however and assert that the cosmos as a whole doesn't require an explanation. They reason that if it had had no beginning it requires no creator.

This in my opinion is a fallacy and can be refuted by a simple analogy. Assume that the Earth has always existed just as it is now. In such a world there would always have been life but life is dependent on the planet on which it lives. The planet may exist without life, and many of them do, but life could not exist without an Earth to grow on, therefore even though they are equal in age, one is still contingent upon the other and nests within it. Likewise the cosmos may be infinite in all respects but if it cannot explain itself it must be contingent upon something else that can explain itself if the world is logical because infinity does NOT excuse explanation. Even if the cosmos has always existed there must be a logical reason it has always existed if the world is, as science seems to suggest, fundamentally logical.

Asserting a universe that exists forever for no logical reason is no different than asserting a God that exists forever for no logical reason and both claims have the same amount of evidence supporting them -none. So if you dismiss the latter as unfounded you must also dismiss the former for the same reason.

In fact as complexity appears to arise from simplicity, not the other way around, and a “flat” universe in which exactly half the energy in it is positive and attractive (gravity) and the other half is negative and repulsive (the outward expansion) seems to be the simplest possible physical description of the world I have no reason to assume a materialistic explanation can ever be found.

Either everything is logical or, at least on the most fundamental level, nothing is so if neither religion or materialism can explain why there is something rather than nothing it would be tempting to conclude existence will forever remain a mystery. However there is a third school of thought which can provide an answer to the question; philosophy. And we will begin with it where the great French philosopher Rene Descartes did. With ourselves.

The maxim "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) is a self-referential observation that provides certain knowledge of our own conscious existence. But that observation can also be put in the form of a syllogism:

I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.

This is the basis of all philosophy and everything we know about logic is derived from this observation; proper distribution of terms to avoid non-sequiturs, the copula which establishes the relationship between those terms positively or negatively by using a form of the words "is" or "is not", and the fallacy of contradictions because how could I be aware of myself if I did not exist? The formal expression of a logical statement is called the syllogism (there are other higher forms of logic but the conclusions reached here are compatible with all of them). In order to better understand it let’s look at it in generic form:

A is B major premise
B is C minor premise
A is C conclusion

Notice how the middle term "B" occurs in both the major and minor premises thus connecting the minor term "A" to the major term "C" allowing for a conclusion. This connection must exist. If it doesn't the conclusion must be dismissed as a non-sequitur. Thus for something to come from something else they must have a commonality between them. By adhering to these simple rules we may now define the terms we will use in our investigation.
The fundamental definition for any term is that derived by reducing it as far as possible without causing a contradiction or until it no longer describes the thing it is meant to define. For example the fundamental defintion of a triangle is a geometric object which has three corners and three sides. This definition is basic to all triangles whether they be isosceles, right or equilateral. But the defintion fails if it is reduced to the point one side is removed leaving a single angle.

Lastly for a statement to be completely logical it must not only be correct in form but contain true premises. Aquiring true or at least credible premises is the province of what is commonly called the scientific method also known as inductive logic. It is simply the logical examination of what we experience. Therefore it applies only to what we experience. We cannot assume the existence of anything we cannot experience unless it may be deduced from something else we can experience. However unlike deductive logic in the form of the syllogism it can never arrive at a definite conclusion because no matter how many times a phenomenon has been seen to occur a particular way there is always the possiblity it may be seen differently in the future.

We are now ready to attempt to answer the question, "why is there something instead of nothing?" by defining what we mean by those terms.
Most people share the common notion of "nothingness" as a void that is completely without property. But we can't just assume that definition is correct without reason. And there is good reason to think it is wrong. If "nothingness" were completely without property it would be absolute. And if "nothingness" were absolute we would NOT be here to ponder the question. So the question must be rephrased. Instead of asking, "how can 'something' come from 'nothing'?" we should instead ask, "what is it about 'nothingness' that keeps it from being absolute?" And in answering the latter we may also answer the former.

All concepts must be defined, even "nothingness" otherwise we may assert a definition that is wrong simply because it seems to us it should be true. No definition or proposition may be considered true however unless it has a logical foundation. And the rules of logic above allow only two ways for definitions to be derived; induction which is based on experience, and deduction. Since I see "something" when I look around me I can not experience "nothingness" and thus cannot rely on induction to discover the meaning of "nothingness" so I must use deduction.

Whatever you can conceive, anything at all that exists, you may negate it without contradiction simply by putting a variation of the words “is not” in front of it. By applying these two words to the totality of existence then we should arrive at the logical definition of "absolute nothingness" by the systematic removal of all the properties of the things we are aware of. But even when that is done the concept of nothingness itself can still be contemplated.

And concepts are not "nothing" which means that "nothingness" is not absolute because it is a concept. Which in turn means "nothingness" is not a void devoid of all property. In other words because "nothingness" is not "nothing" by itself it is a contradiction! But contradictions are not allowed in logic therefore there cannot be a "state of nothingness". And because for "something to come from nothing" there must be some commonality between them to avoid a non-sequitur and the only property "nothingness" has is that it is a concept it follows the world is also basically just a concept.

This may seem counterintuitive but as the philosopher Immanuel Kant showed we can never know the "thing in itself". All we can know about what we sense are those properties which we are consciously aware of so if we adhere strictly to logic we cannot assume that anything we are not aware of or can deduce from valid premises exists therefore we cannot assume anything other than the properties we are aware of exist. That is if we have no evidence of it we have no logical basis to conclude there is a "thing in itself" that has an objective existence at all. And because our awareness of property is conceptual it follows that concept itself is a property. Therefore even though I can negate all other attributes of existence when I place the words "is not" in front of "being as a whole" I still have the idea of nothingness. All other definitions must be dismissed as unfounded and meaningless.

Nothingness cannot be an idea while also being devoid of properties since we could not have performed the operations in logic that allowed us to define it. That is nothingness cannot be absolute and also be conceivable as there would literally be nothing to think about. Absolute means just that. ABSOLUTE! No property. No potential. No exceptions. But since it is conceptual we can say it obviously does have potential which demonstrates it is not absolute and there is no such thing as a “state of nothingness” nor can there be. Just saying, “non-existence exists” is absurd.

David Hume once pointed out that no argument is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. And the concept of "absolute nothingness" does result in contradiction, a violation of the most basic rule of logic. Therefore I have to conclude the common notion of "nothingness" as a void that is completely "without property" is wrong. "Nothingness" does have one property. It is a concept that is in "absolute equilibrium".
Nothingness is the only thing (and because it has property it is a 'thing') that may be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact that it is a concept which is something. Nothingness is a concept, you’re thinking about it right now!

Likewise what we percieve as "somethingness" is also concept since we cannot assume the objective existence of a "thing in itself". And that commonality provides the link needed between the concepts of "nothingness" and "somethingness" that allows for the one to come from the other.
All the evidence I have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. For example I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold? Aside from the fact they appear “physical” I can sense no other property they have in common. For example changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the "physical" characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group physically. 9 has attributes I can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And I can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right as a concept but that is all. I can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” I can only think about it.

The world more and more does seem to be just numbers, values, and probabilities. A materialist may say that the number nine, for instance, must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the physical? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Then the physicist Erwin Schrodinger discovered that energy could be manifested as a wave as well as a particle. And finally another scientist, Max Born, showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event. Probability, in turn, is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which are concepts that it seems can only be seen by the mind.

Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another. One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material as that is a circular argument. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...

Looking at the world as concept also seems to fit a general trend in the advancement of knowledge that is generalizing and simplifying a field to a succinct school of thought. In biology, the entire spectrum of life on Earth has been reduced to one idea - DNA. Chemists have gone further by taking the very stuff of DNA (as well as what everything else in the world is made of) and explaining it with the atom. Again, one simple theory that unites an entire science. Reducing the universe to a concept, based on its common relationship with nothingness as an idea, is the ultimate expression of this, it can not be reduced any further.

Because "nothingness" defined as "absolute equilibrium" is a concept it must be observed just like any other concept however if that's all there is there is literally nothing else to observe it. An unobserved concept is contradictory and thus cannot exist if the world is logical. Consequently as it is self contradictory it is unstable and must collapse into a state that is stable and non-contradictory but in order to do that it has to have something in common with that state to avoid a non-sequitur. Since the only property nothingness has is that of a concept it may only collapse into a state that is also a concept. Therefore that fundamental state must be a concept that is self-referential and thus able to observe Itself as there is literally nothing else to see It. Such a Prime Observer meets the most basic definition of "God" that is common to all religions that postulate a creator in that It is "a self aware being upon which the world is contingent" but logically all that can be said of It is that It is self aware. Nothing more. There is no basis in this model to justify the conclusion the world is a purposeful creation. In fact it suggests the opposite and any universes that exist are nothing more than an unintended side effect philosophers call an epiphenomenon that arise for no reason other than this model gives them the potential to.

Just how this may occur can be illustrated by utilizing a technique called the principle of equivilence to show the difference between "something" and "nothing" is as basic as that of a straight line to one that curves back in on itself. That is because "nothingness" has but one property, concept, therefore it can be represented by a line which also has only one property, length.

As demonstrated concepts are ideas that must be observed thus the concept of "nothingness" must be observed or it will result in a paradox. Since there is literally nothing else to observe it the concept will become unstable and shrink into nonexistence if it remains in an open state therefore if it exists it must collapse into a closed state that is stable and able to hold itself in existence. This is possible because lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle. A line that bends into a circle demonstrates how a concept can collapse into itself and become self referential or self observing. And because self referential observers, such as ourselves, are conscious It follows It must also be conscious. And because It is the foundational consciousness It can be thought of as the Prime Observer from which all things come (because it would be unstable at any time prior to any finite closure it's collapse would be pushed back into infinity so it would always have existed in a closed state making it eternal). It is the simplest possible structure but contains within It all the complexities that can ever be and It explains Itself because It's existence is logically necessary.

circle line drawing.png

The relationship between the “Prime Observer” and nothingness may simply be that of a straight line to one that curves back in on itself.

Like the origin of a number line we can use this model as the starting point to explain many things about the world we see including why our particular universe seems so finely tuned for life.

Because a line may curve in an infinite number of ways you can derive the set of all possible sine waves of any given amplitude from it. There are an infinite number of frequencies in such a set so they would be out of phase. Therefore there would always be a peak of a wave that would fall in between the peaks of any other two waves, no matter how close they are to each other, filling in every possible gap. And the same would be true of their negative deflections so every positive point would be countered by a negative one, the two would cancel out leaving a line marking their midpoint with zero net deflection. This is analogous to "nothingness" as a concept defined as "no difference" or "absolute equilibrium".

wave drawing.png

There are an infinite number of potential waves that may emerge from a straight line.

Now if things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because those things don’t result in contradiction and if there are an infinite number of ways a smooth surface may be distorted it follows that there may be an infinite number of possible combinations of these buried waveforms expressed as worlds with thier own laws of physics (as all possible axioms will be realized) which may emerge spontaneously and simultaneously (which has rather profound implications for our concept of time) as precipitates from the "ground of being" I call the Prime Observer simply because they have the potential to.

That in turn explains why our universe seems so finely tuned for life to emerge. If there are an infinite number of possible universes most would be barren however by sheer chance some, like ours, would emerge in which the conditions for life are present. Thus there is no reason to assume our universe is purposely designed.

fourier drawing.png

Adding two or more waves of different frequencies or amplitudes (which by themselves have no meaning) will produce a single wave of a distinctive shape that is identical to the mathematical descriptions of the world science reveals to us as well as others that may describe other universes which can explain how universes can emerge spontaneously with different physics.

Because this model is fundamentally mathematical in nature and because the world more and more does seem to be just numbers, values, and probabilities it is completely compatible with how science describes the universe. However because the model suggests the existence of what I call the Prime Observer (which could for the purposes of this model be visualized as as a sphere criscrossed with waves of potential) it also seems at least superficially consistent with the concept of God but is a "Prime Observer" really equivalent to God? To answer that we must have a basic understanding of how the concept of God arose and developed.

The recognition of pattern is one of the most basic characteristics of consciousness. Psychologists have determined that our sense of beauty arises from the appreciation of form and symmetry. Rhythm in music, rhyme in poetry, form in sculpture, all instill in us a sort of awe, sometimes to the point of being almost hypnotic. Even the most abstract paintings display subtle patterns that can induce the same feelings we sometimes experience when looking at a particularly beautiful sunset or mountain vista.

The association of order with intelligence and the recognition of order in the world would, it has been claimed, naturally lead early men and women to conclude that a supreme mind, similar to their own, created the universe and this does make some sense. Why else would they subscribe otherwise random events (earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc...) with angry purpose? Even polytheistic cultures tend to assert a hierarchy of gods and spirits descending from a single creator.

That God implies unity gave rise to the monotheistic religions the first of which was probably developed by the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaton (one of the greatest theological geniuses of all time). Initially people ascribed purpose to natural events because they recognized what they believed to be intelligent design.

Unfortunately, and quite frequently, things happen that seem to conflict with each other, an earthquake might alter the flow of a river or a fire may destroy a forest. It appeared to the ancients that there are many “gods”, each with their own sphere of influence and their own agenda. Their personal goals didn’t always mesh, however, so they spent much of their time warring against each other. Thus polytheism was born from such inferences. Akhenaton though was able to comprehend a deeper interpretation and see a single basic principle underlying all of nature. One God, one reason for existence. Very simple, yet very elegant.

There is some historical evidence that I believe supports this hypothesis (although it does seem to be tainted by the effects of myth). One is found in the 19th psalm of the Hebrew Bible “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” Then in the Book of Exodus, which recounts the legend of his encounter with God in the form of a bush that burned without being consumed, Moses dared to ask God It’s name. The simple reply? “I AM.” The same foundation of the self we all share.

Another example comes from the Hindu Rig-Veda (a polytheistic religion): “In the beginning was the self alone in the form of a person who, looking around, saw nothing but himself”. Then, as in the Bible, that self, that mind which the Hindu’s call Brahma created the cosmos. The similarities between these two passages as well as those from other faiths leads me to this conclusion; an intuitive origin of a spiritual world view, distorted by history and (mis)guided by simple philosophy (possibly aided by the ceremonial ingestion of hallucinogenic plants?) may be inherent in our awareness. This offers a better explanation than the religious assertion of divine revelation, like that in the story of Moses, or the atheistic position that belief in God arose from man’s fear of death.

In these examples we can glimpse the basic definition historically ascribed to God. That It says "I am" shows It is self aware and that It is the creator of the world shows the cosmos is contingent on It. But many of the properties God has been assumed to have are actually unnecessary to the concept and, as it turns out, self contradictory and must be dismissed. For example the belief that God is omnipotent can be easily dismissed thusly; if God is all powerful then It could create a wall so strong nothing could breach it. However God could also build a battering ram so powerful nothing could withstand it. This is the classic problem, what would happen if an immovable object met an irresistible force? The answer is an inconceivable occurance and the reason it is inconceivable is because it is self contradictory and thus illogical and therefore must be dismissed. But dismissing omnipotence does not create a contradiction in the concept of God as the cause of the world. It only means that the mechanism by which It causes the world be logical. Science has systematically shown that there is no apparent purpose to the universe because it's evolution and function can be explained by natural laws so by extending that to its logical conclusion it is not necessary to assume God made the cosmos for any purpose.

In fact this model demonstrates that even though the cosmos is contingent upon It observers in the world can interact with it in ways "God" cannot. Imagine the Prime Observer as an ocean unbound by any shore and the world as a wave traveling through it (which is all that is needed to constitute an observation). Now imagine secondary observers such as ourselves as ice bergs. If it encounters no obstruction the wave would move through the water unhindered but if it hits a berg it will be deflected. The ice is made of the same “stuff” as the ocean it floats in but while it is in a solid state it can affect the wave in a way liquid water can’t.

By utilizing the principles of reason philosophy gives us we have been able to construct a simple yet elegant model that answers the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It not only explains itself it also explains the world through the mathematics of the model presented above which suggests mathematics doesn't just describe the cosmos it is the cosmos and is thus compatible with all the mathematical descriptions of the world science provides. And because mathematics is based on number and numbers are fundamentally concepts and concepts must be observed it must be contingent upon a self aware "Prime Observer" which meets the basic definition of the concept of God but which is Deistic (i.e the belief or opinion that God most probably exists based on reason not revelation) and radically different from any religious depictions of God in that It is neither supernatural nor omnipotent. Therefore even though it shows God most probably does exist all that can be said of It is It is self aware and does not intervene in the world even though the world is contingent upon It. Nothing more. Thus this model is actually closer to atheism than theism. But close is not identical and unless materialism can show why nothingness is not absolute it and the atheism founded on it must be dismissed. All they have to do is show that 0/2= something other than 0

[Hobbes' Choice]

The question employs an unwarranted assumption, that there could be some sort of reason that there is something. And this pretty much renders that question useless.

The only real question to which the answer is probably no, is "Could there be a reason why there is something rather than nothing?" And since this would involve something (some reason) outside of the something (of existence); in other words a reason beyond something that renders "nothing" as something", suggests that any reason for there being something is a contradiction.

The fact is that there is something, and nothing more can be said, since the alternative is to not even have a question of any kind.

[stretmediq]

There are no unwarranted assumptions here. In fact they have been scrupulously AVOIDED. While it cannot be proved everything is explainable it IS a reasonable inference because of the amazing success science has had describing, explaining and PREDICTING the things we see in the world. Claiming otherwise is is an unfounded assumption because there is absolutely NO evidence or even a logical argument supporting it. That all things are explainable is the underlying assumption of science itself. Even if an explanation for a phenomenon hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. History is full of examples of things once thought unexplainable that eventually WERE explained. That science and mathematics has been and continues to be so successful in explaining the world is strong evidence the world is fundamentally logical. However for your claim to be true you would have to provide evidence supporting it. Do you have such evidence? If you do please post it. If you don't I have no choice but to dismiss your claim as nonsense

[stretmediq]

Btw way I don't think you actually understand the argument because the definition of nothingness and how it was derived is central to it and your comment doesn't appear to have ANYTHING to do with the definition derived from it

[stretmediq]

Here is a shorter version that maybe you can understand:

We exist. Because we exist we know that the common notion of "nothingness" as a completely empty void without any property of any kind is WRONG.

There are only TWO ways to derive definitions. Induction and deduction.

Because we cannot experience "nothingness" we have to define it by deduction.

We can negate EVERY property of "nothingness" by simply putting a form of the words "is not" in front of "being as a whole" except the fact we can think of it.

Because we can think of it we know "nothingness" is a concept but that's all we can say about it.

Because it is a concept we can use a technique called the principle of equivilence to represent it with a line. This is because the definition of "nothingness" only has one property which is it is a concept. Likewise a line only has one property which is length. Therefore the one can represent the other.

However because concepts are ideas and ideas must be observed by a mind there must be a mind to observe the "concept of nothingness". But there is no other mind to observe it which creates a paradox in which a concept exists unobserved. But there is a way to avoid this paradox. Because lines can bend it can simply bend back on itself like a circle and become self referential or self observing. Do you see how the line can collapse into a circle?

circle line drawing.png

Also because lines can bend in an infinite number of ways an infinite number of waveforms can emerge from it spontaneously simply because there is nothing to prevent them from emerging.

wave drawing.png

If a number of these lines emerge simultaneously they will combine by simple addition to produce a single wave of a distinctive shape. Occasionally such a wave will emerge that is IDENTICAL to the mathematical descriptions of the world science reveals to us.

fourier drawing.png

Because this is based on a LOGICAL definition of "nothingness" and NOT an unfounded assumption it able to avoid the non sequitur of "something" coming from "absolute nothingness".

But that is not the case for materialism because it asserts that only physical things can exist. In that case "nothingness" WOULD be absolute because "nothingness" in materialism is the COMPLETE ABSENCE of physical things.

Therefore materialism must assert, with NO evidence to support it, the world has always existed for NO logical reason. But if the world has no logical reason for being then it is fundamentally MYSTICAL and if it is mystical then anything is possible.

And because I have no knowledge of any other possibilities I am left with a choice between a form of mathematical IDEALISM which can be derived logically and not only can explain the world it can also explain itself because the "concept of nothingness" must collapse in on itself and become a "self referential concept" to avoid the contradiction of an unobserved concept thus making it logically NECESSARY.

Materialism on the other hand has NO evidence to support it and because it has no commonality between "being" and "nothingness" it creates a non sequitur forcing it into an unfounded assertion the world has always existed for NO reason and is thus mystical in nature which is contrary to EVERYTHING science and mathematics has shown us. I'm sorry but that is just flat out ABSURD

[Hobbes' Choice]

There are no unwarranted assumptions here. In fact they have been scrupulously AVOIDED. While it cannot be proved everything is explainable it IS a reasonable inference because of the amazing success science has had describing, explaining and PREDICTING the things we see in the world. Claiming otherwise is is an unfounded assumption because there is absolutely NO evidence or even a logical argument supporting it. That all things are explainable is the underlying assumption of science itself. Even if an explanation for a phenomenon hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. History is full of examples of things once thought unexplainable that eventually WERE explained. That science and mathematics has been and continues to be so successful in explaining the world is strong evidence the world is fundamentally logical. However for your claim to be true you would have to provide evidence supporting it. Do you have such evidence? If you do please post it. If you don't I have no choice but to dismiss your claim as nonsense

You are confused.
The thing about unfounded assumptions is that the people making them rarely know they are doing it, and your observations on science are not relevant.
Science has only proved itself capable of describing the universe; applying ever more complex metaphors to do so. It has never had anything whatever to say on the matter of explanations, except where such explanation lead to further more detailed descriptions. There is no ultimate reason why the universe can be described in terms of laws, and matter/energy in relationships of cause and effect. And no good science has ever attempted to do more than that.
Now you come along screaming about "prediction" when what you want to know about is why the universe exists. Let me tell you it's already happened, and you can't predict what is already here.
The world is not fundamentally "logical" - how absurd of you. Logic and maths are the human conceits by which we describe it.
I'm puzzled why you are asking me for evidence, when I have not made any claims. It's you that is making the claims and making unwarranted assumptions.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Btw way I don't think you actually understand the argument because the definition of nothingness and how it was derived is central to it and your comment doesn't appear to have ANYTHING to do with the definition derived from it

There is no argument here at all.
It's all a bunch of rather childish self-referring rubbish.

[stretmediq]

No it's not. And I think you know it because if that were the case you would be able to explain why it's rubbish by demonstrating specific mistakes. But all you've done is just make unfounded claims. I'm sorry but if this is typical for you I'm not impressed. Now do you have a REAL critique or not? If you do please post it. Can you do that?

[stretmediq]

BTW you ARE making claims. Saying the world is not logical is a CLAIM because it's a positive statement that asserts an opinion. Therefore you ARE subject to providing evidence for your claims. If you can't understand something THAT simple I would really have to question your competence

[Hobbes' Choice]

No it's not. And I think you know it because if that were the case you would be able to explain why it's rubbish by demonstrating specific mistakes. But all you've done is just make unfounded claims. I'm sorry but if this is typical for you I'm not impressed. Now do you have a REAL critique or not? If you do please post it. Can you do that?

I'm critiquing your claims, I've not made any of my own.
As you have made a false start, your entire scheme is at fault.
You have assumed God before you start. Thus your argument is circular.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
Modern Deism EXPLAINED
by
Alumno deVerum

The most profound question we can ask is, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Unfounded claim 1.This is not even a valid question.

Traditionally people have attempted to answer it by postulating a God that was beyond human understanding that created the world for reasons unknown to man.

Indeed they have assumed there is a god before they start.

This view however has been challenged by the rise of modern science which suggests the universe began in what has come to be called "the big bang".

No it does not challenge that view. It says precisely nothing about it at all.

In his theory of relativity Albert Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are essentially the same. The cosmos he said is a vast continuum called space/time held together by gravity which causes it to curve. The total energy in the universe depends on how much space/time curves. The theory also showed that the universe is expanding from a point in time in which all energy was compressed into a singularity of infinite density.

An argument presents itself here and some materialistic philosophers who believe the universe has a objective existence and is not contingent on anything else have used this to try to make the connection between existence and non-existence in an effort to explain why there is something rather than nothing. It goes like this: The universe is an energy field. The amount of energy in the field depends on the total curvature of space within it. If there is a zero net curvature because the outward negative push of the expansion cancels out the inward positive pull of gravity, then space is flat overall and thus there should be zero net energy or, in other words, nothing since matter is just a form of energy.

Says who?

But there is a problem.

This argument is basically mathematical in nature and thus subject to the rules of mathematics. And on the surface it seems logical because in mathematics -1+1=0. The problem arises because mathematics also says 0/2=0. That is half of nothing is still nothing. So this argument actually fails because it confuses 0 meaning “nonexistence” with 0 meaning “no difference”.

The confusion is in your head alone. It is an artefact of maths, not of existence. infintity times infinity= infinity; infinity +infinity = infinity, infinity /finfinity =infinity.

In other words, it is ambiguous. In this case zero obviously means equilibrium, like a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read 0 meaning no difference, but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So all it really does is show how energy can go from a state of potential to the form we see it in around us but it cannot explain why that potential exists.

Not relevant.

Also as materialism assumes only material things exist "nothingness" in that philosophy must be absolute because it is the complete absence of material. Since logic says that for something to come from something else there must be a commonality between them and there is no such bridge between "being" and "nothingness" in materialism, as demonstrated by 0/2=0 above, "something" from "nothing" in that philosophy is a nonsequitur and thus impossible.

Some materialists don't see that as a problem however and assert that the cosmos as a whole doesn't require an explanation. They reason that if it had had no beginning it requires no creator.

This in my opinion is a fallacy and can be refuted by a simple analogy. Assume that the Earth has always existed just as it is now. In such a world there would always have been life but life is dependent on the planet on which it lives. The planet may exist without life, and many of them do, but life could not exist without an Earth to grow on, therefore even though they are equal in age, one is still contingent upon the other and nests within it. Likewise the cosmos may be infinite in all respects but if it cannot explain itself it must be contingent upon something else that can explain itself if the world is logical because infinity does NOT excuse explanation. Even if the cosmos has always existed there must be a logical reason it has always existed if the world is, as science seems to suggest, fundamentally logical.

Asserting a universe that exists forever for no logical reason is no different than asserting a God that exists forever for no logical reason and both claims have the same amount of evidence supporting them -none. So if you dismiss the latter as unfounded you must also dismiss the former for the same reason.

not really - one could be right, neither, or both.

In fact as complexity appears to arise from simplicity, not the other way around, and a “flat” universe in which exactly half the energy in it is positive and attractive (gravity) and the other half is negative and repulsive (the outward expansion) seems to be the simplest possible physical description of the world I have no reason to assume a materialistic explanation can ever be found.

This is your problem. Why do you think there can be any explanation. And even if there was why do you think you could get it from your poor sense of reason?

Either everything is logical or, at least on the most fundamental level, nothing is so

Rubbish - by what measure? We see logical and illogical things every day.

if neither religion or materialism can explain why there is something rather than nothing it would be tempting to conclude existence will forever remain a mystery.

Hooorrey!!

However there is a third school of thought which can provide an answer to the question; philosophy. And we will begin with it where the great French philosopher Rene Descartes did. With ourselves.

The maxim "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) is a self-referential observation that provides certain knowledge of our own conscious existence. But that observation can also be put in the form of a syllogism:

I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.

Even he rejected this bit of flim-flam in the end. "I think therefore I am" .... I think I am .... I think"

This is the basis of all philosophy and everything

More rubbish.

we know about logic is derived from this observation; proper distribution of terms to avoid non-sequiturs, the copula which establishes the relationship between those terms positively or negatively by using a form of the words "is" or "is not", and the fallacy of contradictions because how could I be aware of myself if I did not exist? The formal expression of a logical statement is called the syllogism (there are other higher forms of logic but the conclusions reached here are compatible with all of them). In order to better understand it let’s look at it in generic form:

A is B major premise
B is C minor premise
A is C conclusion

Notice how the middle term "B" occurs in both the major and minor premises thus connecting the minor term "A" to the major term "C" allowing for a conclusion. This connection must exist. If it doesn't the conclusion must be dismissed as a non-sequitur. Thus for something to come from something else they must have a commonality between them. By adhering to these simple rules we may now define the terms we will use in our investigation.

Syllogisms provide no new information and are circular confirming definitions.

The fundamental definition for any term is that derived by reducing it as far as possible without causing a contradiction or until it no longer describes the thing it is meant to define. For example the fundamental defintion of a triangle is a geometric object which has three corners and three sides. This definition is basic to all triangles whether they be isosceles, right or equilateral. But the defintion fails if it is reduced to the point one side is removed leaving a single angle.

Lastly for a statement to be completely logical it must not only be correct in form but contain true premises. Aquiring true or at least credible premises is the province of what is commonly called the scientific method also known as inductive logic. It is simply the logical examination of what we experience. Therefore it applies only to what we experience. We cannot assume the existence of anything we cannot experience unless it may be deduced from something else we can experience. However unlike deductive logic in the form of the syllogism it can never arrive at a definite conclusion because no matter how many times a phenomenon has been seen to occur a particular way there is always the possiblity it may be seen differently in the future.

We are now ready to attempt to answer the question, "why is there something instead of nothing?" by defining what we mean by those terms.

Nope. Syllogisms provide no new information and are circular confirming definitions.

Most people share the common notion of "nothingness" as a void that is completely without property. But we can't just assume that definition is correct without reason. And there is good reason to think it is wrong. If "nothingness" were completely without property it would be absolute. And if "nothingness" were absolute we would NOT be here to ponder the question. So the question must be rephrased. Instead of asking, "how can 'something' come from 'nothing'?" we should instead ask, "what is it about 'nothingness' that keeps it from being absolute?" And in answering the latter we may also answer the former.

It is a fact that there is not nothing. This is empirical and not reasonable.

All concepts must be defined, even "nothingness" otherwise we may assert a definition that is wrong simply because it seems to us it should be true. No definition or proposition may be considered true however unless it has a logical foundation. And the rules of logic above allow only two ways for definitions to be derived; induction which is based on experience, and deduction. Since I see "something" when I look around me I can not experience "nothingness" and thus cannot rely on induction to discover the meaning of "nothingness" so I must use deduction.

Syllogisms provide no new information and are circular confirming definitions.

Whatever you can conceive, anything at all that exists, you may negate it without contradiction simply by putting a variation of the words “is not” in front of it. By applying these two words to the totality of existence then we should arrive at the logical definition of "absolute nothingness" by the systematic removal of all the properties of the things we are aware of. But even when that is done the concept of nothingness itself can still be contemplated.

And concepts are not "nothing" which means that "nothingness" is not absolute because it is a concept. Which in turn means "nothingness" is not a void devoid of all property. In other words because "nothingness" is not "nothing" by itself it is a contradiction! But contradictions are not allowed in logic therefore there cannot be a "state of nothingness". And because for "something to come from nothing" there must be some commonality between them to avoid a non-sequitur and the only property "nothingness" has is that it is a concept it follows the world is also basically just a concept.

This may seem counterintuitive but as the philosopher Immanuel Kant showed we can never know the "thing in itself". All we can know about what we sense are those properties which we are consciously aware of so if we adhere strictly to logic we cannot assume that anything we are not aware of or can deduce from valid premises exists therefore we cannot assume anything other than the properties we are aware of exist. That is if we have no evidence of it we have no logical basis to conclude there is a "thing in itself" that has an objective existence at all. And because our awareness of property is conceptual it follows that concept itself is a property. Therefore even though I can negate all other attributes of existence when I place the words "is not" in front of "being as a whole" I still have the idea of nothingness. All other definitions must be dismissed as unfounded and meaningless.

Nothingness cannot be an idea while also being devoid of properties since we could not have performed the operations in logic that allowed us to define it. That is nothingness cannot be absolute and also be conceivable as there would literally be nothing to think about. Absolute means just that. ABSOLUTE! No property. No potential. No exceptions. But since it is conceptual we can say it obviously does have potential which demonstrates it is not absolute and there is no such thing as a “state of nothingness” nor can there be. Just saying, “non-existence exists” is absurd.

David Hume once pointed out that no argument is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. And the concept of "absolute nothingness" does result in contradiction, a violation of the most basic rule of logic. Therefore I have to conclude the common notion of "nothingness" as a void that is completely "without property" is wrong. "Nothingness" does have one property. It is a concept that is in "absolute equilibrium".
Nothingness is the only thing (and because it has property it is a 'thing') that may be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact that it is a concept which is something. Nothingness is a concept, you’re thinking about it right now!

Likewise what we percieve as "somethingness" is also concept since we cannot assume the objective existence of a "thing in itself". And that commonality provides the link needed between the concepts of "nothingness" and "somethingness" that allows for the one to come from the other.
All the evidence I have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. For example I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold? Aside from the fact they appear “physical” I can sense no other property they have in common. For example changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the "physical" characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group physically. 9 has attributes I can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And I can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right as a concept but that is all. I can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” I can only think about it.

Syllogisms provide no new information and are circular confirming definitions. Repeating the mistake again and again does not help your argument. It just makes you look stupid.

The world more and more does seem to be just numbers, values, and probabilities. A materialist may say that the number nine, for instance, must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the physical? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Then the physicist Erwin Schrodinger discovered that energy could be manifested as a wave as well as a particle. And finally another scientist, Max Born, showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event. Probability, in turn, is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which are concepts that it seems can only be seen by the mind.

Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another. One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material as that is a circular argument. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...

Looking at the world as concept also seems to fit a general trend in the advancement of knowledge that is generalizing and simplifying a field to a succinct school of thought. In biology, the entire spectrum of life on Earth has been reduced to one idea - DNA. Chemists have gone further by taking the very stuff of DNA (as well as what everything else in the world is made of) and explaining it with the atom. Again, one simple theory that unites an entire science. Reducing the universe to a concept, based on its common relationship with nothingness as an idea, is the ultimate expression of this, it can not be reduced any further.

THis is getting boring.

Because "nothingness" defined as "absolute equilibrium" is a concept it must be observed just like any other concept however if that's all there is there is literally nothing else to observe it. An unobserved concept is contradictory and thus cannot exist if the world is logical. Consequently as it is self contradictory it is unstable and must collapse into a state that is stable and non-contradictory but in order to do that it has to have something in common with that state to avoid a non-sequitur. Since the only property nothingness has is that of a concept it may only collapse into a state that is also a concept. Therefore that fundamental state must be a concept that is self-referential and thus able to observe Itself as there is literally nothing else to see It. Such a Prime Observer meets the most basic definition of "God" that is common to all religions that postulate a creator in that It is "a self aware being upon which the world is contingent" but logically all that can be said of It is that It is self aware. Nothing more. There is no basis in this model to justify the conclusion the world is a purposeful creation. In fact it suggests the opposite and any universes that exist are nothing more than an unintended side effect philosophers call an epiphenomenon that arise for no reason other than this model gives them the potential to.

Just how this may occur can be illustrated by utilizing a technique called the principle of equivilence to show the difference between "something" and "nothing" is as basic as that of a straight line to one that curves back in on itself. That is because "nothingness" has but one property, concept, therefore it can be represented by a line which also has only one property, length.

As demonstrated concepts are ideas that must be observed thus the concept of "nothingness" must be observed or it will result in a paradox. Since there is literally nothing else to observe it the concept will become unstable and shrink into nonexistence if it remains in an open state therefore if it exists it must collapse into a closed state that is stable and able to hold itself in existence. This is possible because lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle. A line that bends into a circle demonstrates how a concept can collapse into itself and become self referential or self observing. And because self referential observers, such as ourselves, are conscious It follows It must also be conscious. And because It is the foundational consciousness It can be thought of as the Prime Observer from which all things come (because it would be unstable at any time prior to any finite closure it's collapse would be pushed back into infinity so it would always have existed in a closed state making it eternal). It is the simplest possible structure but contains within It all the complexities that can ever be and It explains Itself because It's existence is logically necessary.

circle line drawing.png

The relationship between the “Prime Observer” and nothingness may simply be that of a straight line to one that curves back in on itself.

Like the origin of a number line we can use this model as the starting point to explain many things about the world we see including why our particular universe seems so finely tuned for life.

Jesus Christ this is dull.

Because a line may curve in an infinite number of ways you can derive the set of all possible sine waves of any given amplitude from it. There are an infinite number of frequencies in such a set so they would be out of phase. Therefore there would always be a peak of a wave that would fall in between the peaks of any other two waves, no matter how close they are to each other, filling in every possible gap. And the same would be true of their negative deflections so every positive point would be countered by a negative one, the two would cancel out leaving a line marking their midpoint with zero net deflection. This is analogous to "nothingness" as a concept defined as "no difference" or "absolute equilibrium".

not relevant.

Now if things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because those things don’t result in contradiction and if there are an infinite number of ways a smooth surface may be distorted it follows that there may be an infinite number of possible combinations of these buried waveforms expressed as worlds with thier own laws of physics (as all possible axioms will be realized) which may emerge spontaneously and simultaneously (which has rather profound implications for our concept of time) as precipitates from the "ground of being" I call the Prime Observer simply because they have the potential to.

That in turn explains why our universe seems so finely tuned for life to emerge. If there are an infinite number of possible universes most would be barren however by sheer chance some, like ours, would emerge in which the conditions for life are present. Thus there is no reason to assume our universe is purposely designed.

fourier drawing.png

......ver (which could for the purposes of this model be visualized as as a sphere criscrossed with waves of potential) it also seems at least superficially consistent with the concept of God but is a "Prime Observer" really equivalent to God? To answer that we must have a basic understanding of how the concept of God arose and developed.

Here's where you make the most ridiculous mistake. Where the fuck do you get God from?

The recognition of pattern is one of the most basic characteristics of consciousness. Psychologists have determined that our sense of beauty arises from the appreciation of form and symmetry. Rhythm in music, rhyme in poetry, form in sculpture, all instill in us a sort of awe, sometimes to the point of being almost hypnotic. Even the most abstract paintings display subtle patterns that can induce the same feelings we sometimes experience when looking at a particularly beautiful sunset or mountain vista.

The association of order with intelligence and the recognition of order in the world would, it has been claimed, naturally lead early men and women to conclude that a supreme mind, similar to their own, created the universe and this does make some sense. Why else would they subscribe otherwise random events (earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc...) with angry purpose? Even polytheistic cultures tend to assert a hierarchy of gods and spirits descending from a single creator.

So what? This is not reasonable; not rational, and not evident.

That God implies unity gave rise to the monotheistic religions the first of which was probably developed by the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaton (one of the greatest theological geniuses of all time). Initially people ascribed purpose to natural events because they recognized what they believed to be intelligent design.

Akhenaton was not a genius. He was a megalomaniac tyrant, who tore down the most stable and enduring culture of all time. That much we do know.

Unfortunately, and quite frequently, things happen that seem to conflict with each other, an earthquake might alter the flow of a river or a fire may destroy a forest. It appeared to the ancients that there are many “gods”, each with their own sphere of influence and their own agenda. Their personal goals didn’t always mesh, however, so they spent much of their time warring against each other. Thus polytheism was born from such inferences. Akhenaton though was able to comprehend a deeper interpretation and see a single basic principle underlying all of nature. One God, one reason for existence. Very simple, yet very elegant.

Blah blah blah. You are just preaching. There is no argument here at all.

There is some historical evidence that I believe supports this hypothesis (although it does seem to be tainted by the effects of myth). One is found in the 19th psalm of the Hebrew Bible “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” Then in the Book of Exodus, which recounts the legend of his encounter with God in the form of a bush that burned without being consumed, Moses dared to ask God It’s name. The simple reply? “I AM.” The same foundation of the self we all share.

Another example comes from the Hindu Rig-Veda (a polytheistic religion): “In the beginning was the self alone in the form of a person who, looking around, saw nothing but himself”. Then, as in the Bible, that self, that mind which the Hindu’s call Brahma created the cosmos. The similarities between these two passages as well as those from other faiths leads me to this conclusion; an intuitive origin of a spiritual world view, distorted by history and (mis)guided by simple philosophy (possibly aided by the ceremonial ingestion of hallucinogenic plants?) may be inherent in our awareness. This offers a better explanation than the religious assertion of divine revelation, like that in the story of Moses, or the atheistic position that belief in God arose from man’s fear of death.

Preaching.

In these examples we can glimpse the basic definition historically ascribed to God. That It says "I am" shows It is self aware and that It is the creator of the world shows the cosmos is contingent on It. But many of the properties God has been assumed to have are actually unnecessary to the concept and, as it turns out, self contradictory and must be dismissed. For example the belief that God is omnipotent can be easily dismissed thusly; if God is all powerful then It could create a wall so strong nothing could breach it. However God could also build a battering ram so powerful nothing could withstand it. This is the classic problem, what would happen if an immovable object met an irresistible force? The answer is an inconceivable occurance and the reason it is inconceivable is because it is self contradictory and thus illogical and therefore must be dismissed. But dismissing omnipotence does not create a contradiction in the concept of God as the cause of the world. It only means that the mechanism by which It causes the world be logical. Science has systematically shown that there is no apparent purpose to the universe because it's evolution and function can be explained by natural laws so by extending that to its logical conclusion it is not necessary to assume God made the cosmos for any purpose.

You are not even trying.

In fact this model demonstrates that even though the cosmos is contingent upon It observers in the world can interact with it in ways "God" cannot. Imagine the Prime Observer as an ocean unbound by any shore and the world as a wave traveling through it (which is all that is needed to constitute an observation). Now imagine secondary observers such as ourselves as ice bergs. If it encounters no obstruction the wave would move through the water unhindered but if it hits a berg it will be deflected. The ice is made of the same “stuff” as the ocean it floats in but while it is in a solid state it can affect the wave in a way liquid water can’t.

By utilizing the principles of reason philosophy gives us we have been able to construct a simple yet elegant model that answers the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It not only explains itself it also explains the world through the mathematics of the model presented above which suggests mathematics doesn't just describe the cosmos it is the cosmos and is thus compatible with all the mathematical descriptions of the world science provides. And because mathematics is based on number and numbers are fundamentally concepts and concepts must be observed it must be contingent upon a self aware "Prime Observer" which meets the basic definition of the concept of God but which is Deistic (i.e the belief or opinion that God most probably exists based on reason not revelation) and radically different from any religious depictions of God in that It is neither supernatural nor omnipotent. Therefore even though it shows God most probably does exist all that can be said of It is It is self aware and does not intervene in the world even though the world is contingent upon It. Nothing more. Thus this model is actually closer to atheism than theism. But close is not identical and unless materialism can show why nothingness is not absolute it and the atheism founded on it must be dismissed. All they have to do is show that 0/2= something other than 0

And you end with a massive non sequitur.

[Obvious Leo]

It is a fact that there is not nothing. This is empirical and not reasonable.

Correct. That nothing does not exist is a semantic statement of definition which requires no further logical elaboration.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It is a fact that there is not nothing. This is empirical and not reasonable.

Correct. That nothing does not exist is a semantic statement of definition which requires no further logical elaboration.

Indeed.

[Obvious Leo]

Or as Sir Humphrey Appleby might put it.

If a circle is defined as a continuous line which is equidistant from a point then it becomes impossible to define a continuous line which is equidistant from a point as anything other than a circle. The circularity of a circle is not a feature of a circle which is reducible to a mathematical proof.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Or as Sir Humphrey Appleby might put it.

If a circle is defined as a continuous line which is equidistant from a point then it becomes impossible to define a continuous line which is equidistant from a point as anything other than a circle. The circularity of a circle is not a feature of a circle which is reducible to a mathematical proof.

And not to avoid a pun. It is a circular argument.