Why is there something rather than nothing? Is there any work that can answer this question, other than religion?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Is there any work that can answer this question, other than religion?

>reality just exists bro

Our entire experience of reality shows that everything in existence requires a sufficient cause. There is no reason to think that the totality of reality is any different.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Our entire experience of reality shows that everything in existence requires a sufficient cause. There is no reason to think that the totality of reality is any different.
    So what would have caused whatever caused reality? The principle of sufficient reason leads to infinite regress or to refuting itself by finding something that doesn't have a sufficient cause. It's playing a game of asking why continuously but then getting mad when someone says why God? or whatever pet metaphysical foundation you have in mind.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you say "What created God?" Then you simply don't understand the concept of God.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Or people can't accept special pleading and try to run around it.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          God IS special pleading. That's the point.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you say "What created God?" Then you simply don't understand the concept of God.
        And if you believe that God doesn't need a sufficient cause then you believe the principle of sufficient reason isn't true. God would be the example that refutes the principle in my original post. Which would then stop you from using the principle to argue for God's existence.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          You don't understand the principle of sufficient reason. It only applies to that which requires a cause (i.e., could have not existed).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah so there you go. Reality must necessarily exist. Problem solved. You don't understand that whatever special pleading you want to apply to God to get around the principle of sufficient reason can just as easily be directly applied to reality. Add in another philosophical principle, Occam's Razor, and adding God into the equation is ruled out.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            False. Special pleading doesn't work for our universe because we already know it to be contingent. Nothing in our universe is NOT contingent. The "universe" is not some abstract other thing. It is shorthand to describe everything we know of, which is all contingent.

            God is a completely different ontological category.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >False. Special pleading doesn't work for our universe because we already know it to be contingent. Nothing in our universe is NOT contingent.
            How do you know the universe is contingent and God isn't besides you just making shit up?

            The concept of God is that which does not require a reason for existence. That is the definition of God.

            Ah so you just bake it into the definition. The definition of the universe is that which does not require a reason for existence. Problem solved. If you won't accept my definition I don't have to accept yours. This goofy defining yourself to be correct is the worst kind of pseudophilosophy

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I base my beliefs on evidence. The evidence from what we experience is that everything in our plane of existence is contingent and requires a cause. You can speculate otherwise, but then you are getting away from the evidence of our experience.

            All language is tautology for the underlying idea.

            >The concept of God is that which does not require a reason for existence
            Which directly contradicts the principle of sufficient reason. So either the principle is wrong or God doesn't exist.

            No. PSR says that everything contingent requires a cause. God is not contingent.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wow thanks there mr kant what an epic contribution to philosophy

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The evidence from what we experience is that everything in OUR PLANE OF EXISTENCE is contingent and requires a cause.
            Which is not the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason is that everything that exists requires a cause. Does something on a different plane of existence not exist? Yeah then sure God is on a different plane of existence.
            >God is not contingent.
            Reality isn't contingent. Saying something doesn't make it true. And again a necessary God directly contradicts the principle of sufficient reason.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are simply wrong. The PSR is based on evidence. Your view is based on wishful thinking.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The principle is based on evidence and it leads to the conclusion that EVERYTHING requires a cause since EVERYTHING that we can see requires a cause. So by the principle of sufficient reason God would require a cause. If God didn't require a cause that would disprove the principle of sufficient reason since EVERYTHING we have evidence of would no longer require a cause. Your the one trying to claim the principle is false by claiming God exists.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No. PSR says that everything in our world requires a cause. Not "everything." You're wrong again.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No. PSR says that everything in our world requires a cause. Not "everything." You're wrong again.
            So your new version of the principle doesn't apply to reality since all of reality is not the limited "our world". If you drop the everything part you lose the ability to abstract out to reality as a a whole.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The principle of sufficient reason is that everything that exists requires a cause
            Yes, but only THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE. Remember there are most likely infinite planes of existence of which we know nothing of except through oracles.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but only THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE
            Did you not even read the full post? I already addressed this. EVERYTHING means EVERYTHING. If it doesn't mean everything I can just use special pleading and say reality doesn't need a cause.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then you are denying the evidence of our reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then you are denying the evidence of our reality.
            No I'm not. The principle of sufficient reason says that EVERYTHING has a cause since EVERYTHING we have evidence for has a cause. It's an inductive argument based on a lack of counterexamples. God's existence would be a counterexample. You're denying the evidence of our reality as used in the principle of sufficient reason by saying an uncaused God exists.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. Go back to school.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            OP's rendering of the principle of sufficient reason.
            >Our entire experience of reality shows that EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE requires a sufficient cause.
            If you drop the everything the argument falls apart. Reality would no longer need a cause

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            All evidence of our reality shows that it needs a cause. God is outside of our reality, by definition.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you're saying that one part of reality is outside of the other part?
            So you're saying that the universe just exists without a cause.
            By universe I mean "everything there is".

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't understand the concept of God. God exists outside of our reality. You can't even talk about God in terms of the same life of existence as our reality. God is not contingent. God is eternal, perfect, simple, etc etc

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't understand the concept of God. God exists outside of our reality
            And if reality is "everything there is" and God is outside reality that means God doesn't exist. If something exists it is part of reality by definition

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The God anon is right. The universe needs a cause, but GOD doesn't.
            And this would disprove the principle of sufficient reason. Which would mean the universe wouldn't have to have a cause either.

            You are a smolbrain. It is apparent you cannot grasp abstract concepts. So there is nothing else to say. God is a separate mode of existence. I already explained this to you. God does not exist like our reality exists.

            I'm out, lata. God bless.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God is a separate mode of existence. I already explained this to you. God does not exist like our reality exists.
            And since reality just means everything that exists God must not exist. When you say everything you're talking about reality. I've pointed this out repeatedly

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, you need to find an oracle to consult. Look for your local pagan chapter. I personally find affinity with Freyr, so if you make a thread about it I can probably help you out with any questions you have.

            Then you are denying the evidence of our reality.

            Thanks fellow gods worshipping brother.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Amen, brother. As a pagan it so hard arguing with materialists about why Odin, Thor, Loki, etc. are not contingent.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It only applies to that which requires a cause (i.e., could have not existed).
            The principle of sufficient reason in OP
            >Our entire experience of reality shows that everything in existence requires a sufficient cause.
            So unless God doesn't exist he requires a sufficient reason. Or you think the principle of sufficient reason is wrong and can't be used to argue for an ultimate cause outside reality.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The concept of God is that which does not require a reason for existence. That is the definition of God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The concept of God is that which does not require a reason for existence
            Which directly contradicts the principle of sufficient reason. So either the principle is wrong or God doesn't exist.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there any work that can answer this question, other than religion?
    No, all STEM pursuits are studying the shadows on the wall. We are within the mind of God and are part of the higher Godhead, as we are conscious agents within it, in similar manner to how lucid dreams work. Atheists are soulless hylics and should be pitied and ignored.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also the ultimate cause is almost certainly unknowable, don't worry about it and bask in the grand mystery of it all instead.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Also the ultimate cause is almost certainly unknowable
        >religitards then proceed to give a detailed history of the ultimate cause's anthropomorphic whims and personality
        It's all so tiresome

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >religitards then proceed to give a detailed history of the ultimate cause's anthropomorphic whims and personality
          abrahamics are victims of a semitic desert demon, dont conflate them with this line of thought

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      A good rule of thumb is to instantly ignore any people on Oyish making gnosticism references as these people are virtually guaranteed to have developed their entire spiritual worldview via mspaint memes.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        go back to your Oyish religion containment threads

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    nothing and something are the same

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The creation of our natural world could not have been created by something in the natural world but by something outside of it. Religion is not the answer to this question but rather an imperfect attempt to understand the planes beyond our reach or comprehension.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Our entire experience of reality shows that everything in existence requires a sufficient cause. There is no reason to think that the totality of reality is any different.
    And yet the totality of reality can't have a cause because that cause would have to be something outside the totality of reality, i.e. something not real. So you have to accept that reality just exists bro.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Our entire experience of reality shows that everything in existence requires a sufficient cause. There is no reason to think that the totality of reality is any different.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong application. The universe is not some other "thing." It is only the parts. It is shorthand to describe all the various contingent things.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because of logical necessity. Read Hegel's Logic.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ah the circular logic Hegel moron.
      >It's necessary because it's necessary!

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hegel was wrong about everything

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t think everything in existence requires sufficient cause. Should there be an unmoved mover (not necessarily a religious concept) that begins the causes, even if it is said to contain motion, its motion may not act a moving cause, and as such cannot be adequately explained. There is something rather than nothing because existence is free in this way.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Religion doesn't even answer it.

    >Our entire experience of reality shows that everything in existence requires a sufficient cause. There is no reason to think that the totality of reality is any different.

    Yes there is. We have no experience of anything outside of reality, and cannot reason coherently about such things.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    we're all better off not worrying about this. live your life the way you want to every day. do what you want, take what you need, don't believe in god

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      And if someone says "okay" and steals all your stuff and rapes and kills your family?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then they will have stolen all of my stuff and raped and killed my family.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    ffs OP, the Eleatics answered this question decisively 2,500 years ago. There's a reason we tell people to start with the Greeks.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    How could there be nothing? Seems to imply the existence of nonexistence

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The God anon is right. The universe needs a cause, but GOD doesn't.

    GOD is the outer shell in which our universe resides in. It means "great oblong dildo", owing to its shape. This metaphysical, paranatural "space" is inhabited (if you can call it that) by termite like beings - more like automatons tbh. They make up what we are and what we do. Not sure how exactly but they are our cause and they or it is not caused itself.
    So yeah, that's proof for God and how God doesn't need a cause.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The God anon is right. The universe needs a cause, but GOD doesn't.
      And this would disprove the principle of sufficient reason. Which would mean the universe wouldn't have to have a cause either.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dude, I was on your side. Did you not get the sarcasm? Smdh senpai

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't read anything besides what I quoted my bad. He just posts the same shit over and over so I don't really pay attention anymore.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ask him to ascribe a property to this "God". Anything that would make anyone even care. It could be a giant, perfect piece of shit. That which everything returns to. The uncaused turd.

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    dumb question. the real question is- why is there always something new?

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's an infinite loop followed by dimensions of infinite loops, endless symmetry and reflection.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *