Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Lordofgemini

an intriguing question

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1) something must exist logically that is why all things we see exist if there was nothing how would everything exist.  

2) as for the existence of nothing is merely defined as non existence as of now. because humans arent developed enough to realise there will always be something. 

3)if there was nothing like NOTHING we wouldn't be here talking there would be nothing no life.  that is why there was something..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Syed Muhammad Taqi Mehdi said:

1) something must exist logically that is why all things we see exist if there was nothing how would everything exist.  

2) as for the existence of nothing is merely defined as non existence as of now. because humans arent developed enough to realise there will always be something. 

3)if there was nothing like NOTHING we wouldn't be here talking there would be nothing no life.  that is why there was something..

Brother you didn't understand the question perhaps its wasn't clearly stated.

The question was why is existence there itself. And not nothing.

1. Why, how come all things came about.

2. Our realization has nothing to do with the existence of universe.

3.Why is there life/existence in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lordofgemini said:

Brother you didn't understand the question perhaps its wasn't clearly stated.

The question was why is existence there itself. And not nothing.

1. Why, how come all things came about.

2. Our realization has nothing to do with the existence of universe.

3.Why is there life/existence in the first place.

the third point answers that quote i think.if there was nothing then the existence wouldnt exist. and this can be logically proven. like a building needs a builder and if the builder doesn't exist how would the building exist...

1) well there is something creating things which we can see,  the universe itself is expanding..  

2) it can go two ways.. it goes same way as nothing. realization is naturally possessed by humans.  because realizing the existence of something defines it...  as for the discussion it is because of some realization. 

3) interestingly there are many philosophies regarding this. to believe if there was nothing then we wouldnt exist.  and to believe in the existence of something is a fact of our existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Syed Muhammad Taqi Mehdi said:

the third point answers that quote i think.if there was nothing then the existence wouldnt exist. and this can be logically proven. like a building needs a builder and if the builder doesn't exist how would the building exist...

1) well there is something creating things which we can see,  the universe itself is expanding..  

2) it can go two ways.. it goes same way as nothing. realization is naturally possessed by humans.  because realizing the existence of something defines it...  as for the discussion it is because of some realization. 

3) interestingly there are many philosophies regarding this. to believe if there was nothing then we wouldnt exist.  and to believe in the existence of something is a fact of our existence. 

 

See what we are interested in is that why did the builder exist. Why wasn't there no builder and no building.

1. Forgot what is, why did the universe even exist. Why did God exist. Why wasn't there no God. Why weren't we not.

2. But neither our discussion affects the existence of the universe nor does human realization or do you say otherwise? That if there was no human conscious then there would have been no universe?

3. But how did our existence come about? instead of nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, Lordofgemini said:

 

See what we are interested in is that why did the builder exist. Why wasn't there no builder and no building.

1. Forgot what is, why did the universe even exist. Why did God exist. Why wasn't there no God. Why weren't we not.

2. But neither our discussion affects the existence of the universe nor does human realization or do you say otherwise? That if there was no human conscious then there would have been no universe?

3. But how did our existence come about? instead of nothing

i know where you wanted to go.  lets take a step backwards.. we humans,  why did God even create us?  why did we even exist. 

1) the two whys are already answered. the third is hard to go by. i am incapable of answering it..

2)  well the existence of something which we have realized is then stored in our self. like imagination,  we imagine things which doesn't  existence yet they exist in our imagination... 

there would still be an universe but we wouldn't know if there was no consciousness. 

3)  well this nothing can be taken as there is no existence of alines on other planets yet there is. as the incapability humans existed before but it improved now that is why they say now there can be life on other planets. 

that is just hard to answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Syed Muhammad Taqi Mehdi said:

 

i know where you wanted to go.  lets take a step backwards.. we humans,  why did God even create us?  why did we even exist. 

1) the two whys are already answered. the third is hard to go by. i am incapable of answering it..

2)  well the existence of something which we have realized is then stored in our self. like imagination,  we imagine things which doesn't  existence yet they exist in our imagination... 

there would still be an universe but we wouldn't know if there was no consciousness. 

3)  well this nothing can be taken as there is no existence of alines on other planets yet there is. as the incapability humans existed before but it improved now that is why they say now there can be life on other planets. 

that is just hard to answer. 

Since you are now on the correct lines, lets discuss the actual topic.

The 3rd question is what we are after, You are one of those who say God. The other two options were something and nothing. Something which is true now is the most impossible of the three yet it is the one that is apparently true. And Nothing, why wasn't the entire system a non existence. Is non existence possible?

You are still thinking while keeping your self restricted to this universe and it things, lets just call the entire universe something. which includes space and time. Nothing is no God no space and time. While God is something you have to explain and prove if its true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lordofgemini said:

why not? i have already said so many time. Simply put, a positive needs something to become positive. it cant JUST be positive on its own. There should have been no existence. Moving on.

lets discuss the nature of that singularity(the causeless) 

Again now we have the first problem something just cant exist. its illogical. I had say impossible. Although our existence itself speaks against it, but we are looking at it theoretically.

Nothingness is what should have existed, But there is existence. So the nature of that singularity(i am jumping) should be more like nothingness yet existing but not a positive existence either. Going to stop here for now.

 

God is just merely a word for it, which comes way after. Jumping to God right now would be irrational. lets stick to the Necessary existence and its nature. And i completely agree with you.i am also against applying human flavors on it.

But the moment we realize the existence of our universe or us is an impossibility(we can further discuss this if you disagree) it becomes a proof for something else.

Why should there be "nothing" when there is something?  

The idea that "nothingness" can have existence is a contradiction. 

For me 'something' is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing.

You say impossible and I say possible; .... before we get to the stage where we repeat impossible and possible several times in a Merry Go Round...

If I say that existence exists, I am stating the obvious, no need for proof.

If you say existence is impossible unless it is triggered by something else, you are not stating the obvious; you are making a claim and thus acquire the burden of proof.

If you can prove your claim with adequate evidence and logic then I am wrong and you are right... but if you can't prove your claim you are expressing a personal opinion of equal validity to mine.

We end up with two different opinions.  Your common sense and my common sense. 
I am very happy with my thinking and I guess you are happy with yours.

So, unless you have more substance than an opinion, let's agree to disagree.  

Wslm.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Quisant said:

Why should there be "nothing" when there is something?  

The idea that "nothingness" can have existence is a contradiction. 

For me 'something' is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing.

You say impossible and I say possible; .... before we get to the stage where we repeat impossible and possible several times in a Merry Go Round...

If I say that existence exists, I am stating the obvious, no need for proof.

If you say existence is impossible unless it is triggered by something else, you are not stating the obvious; you are making a claim and thus acquire the burden of proof.

If you can prove your claim with adequate evidence and logic then I am wrong and you are right... but if you can't prove your claim you are expressing a personal opinion of equal validity to mine.

We end up with two different opinions.  Your common sense and my common sense. 
I am very happy with my thinking and I guess you are happy with yours.

So, unless you have more substance than an opinion, let's agree to disagree.  

Wslm.

*
 

Well no one is saying "impossible and I say possible", it is the physical laws around us like the law of conservation of mass that say impossible to nothing, and the burden of proof is demonstrated through the laws of causality unless you don't believe in those do you?

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Well no one is saying "impossible and I say possible", it is the physical laws around us like the law of conservation of mass that say impossible to nothing, and the burden of proof is demonstrated through the laws of causality unless you don't believe in those do you?

What are you talking about?

Can you be a bit less enigmatic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Quisant said:

Why should there be "nothing" when there is something?  

The idea that "nothingness" can have existence is a contradiction. 

For me 'something' is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing.

You say impossible and I say possible; .... before we get to the stage where we repeat impossible and possible several times in a Merry Go Round...

If I say that existence exists, I am stating the obvious, no need for proof.

If you say existence is impossible unless it is triggered by something else, you are not stating the obvious; you are making a claim and thus acquire the burden of proof.

If you can prove your claim with adequate evidence and logic then I am wrong and you are right... but if you can't prove your claim you are expressing a personal opinion of equal validity to mine.

We end up with two different opinions.  Your common sense and my common sense. 
I am very happy with my thinking and I guess you are happy with yours.

So, unless you have more substance than an opinion, let's agree to disagree.  

Wslm.

*
 

Sorry for the late reply, was busy.

You say, why should there be nothing when there is something, and that if you say existence exists. no need for proofs.

Yes the idea of nothingness having existence is a contradiction but something having existence by itself is also illogical.

First thing that when you say existence is a proof for itself. that itself holds truth, but that is like, just accepting what is, blindly without further investigating.

As for proofs and logic

1. Anything must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause and so on. This brings about an infinite chain of events of causes causing causes. which is illogical.

2. Everything needs an 'origin' a start, as is seen in nature. Yet the entire existence has no start? - illogical as everything is nature screams against it. Our entire existence is proof against our entire existence. to be more clear is there anything is this universe that didn't have an origin?

3. There should have been nothing because a cause/start is required to have something. And that start/cause cant just be there without a start. And if there is no start we are left with nothing,

4. what are the possibilities?  

Either there is the above mentioned chain of events where a contingent being is the cause of another contingent being, is it possible? or logical?

or there is nothing, why is that not happening?

or there is the singularity the necessary being you mentioned which started this chain of events, why is this singularity there? what is its nature?

or?

peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lordofgemini said:

2. Everything needs an 'origin' a start, as is seen in nature. Yet the entire existence has no start? - illogical as everything is nature screams against it. Our entire existence is proof against our entire existence. to be more clear is there anything is this universe that didn't have an origin?

3. There should have been nothing because a cause/start is required to have something. And that start/cause cant just be there without a start. And if there is no start we are left with nothing,

4. what are the possibilities?  

Either there is the above mentioned chain of events where a contingent being is the cause of another contingent being, is it possible? or logical?

or there is nothing, why is that not happening?

or there is the singularity the necessary being you mentioned which started this chain of events, why is this singularity there? what is its nature?

Do not worry about being late, I am guilty of the same problem. :)

 

How did you originate?

Not once in all of human history has anyone seen anything created; stuff changes into other stuff, but the total amount of stuff stays exactly the same. 

Nothing we observe has origin from 'nothing'. 
Nothing "begins to exist" where nothing existed before. There wasn't a shed in my garden a year ago, but now a very fine one exists. 
It did not begin to exist, it was assembled from already existing material.

Similarly, the stars, planets, black holes, asteroids and everything else comprising our universe today all resulted from the rearrangement of existing material. 
The only logical thing one can draw from this observation is that the universe as we see it today is itself the result of the rearrangement of existing material. 

It is absurd to go from observations of everything resulting from rearrangement of existing material to the conclusion that therefore all the existing material was poofed into existence ex-nihilo.

So what you should really be saying is that "Everything that is an effect has a cause." Which of course changes the perspective mightily.

Moving 14 billion years ago it might well be stated that the universe is an effect of the Big Bang.
And it can be inferred that the big bang was an effect of the singularity.

What cannot be said is that the singularity was an effect. Right now there is not enough information to declare with any certainty what it was. There are many theories, none is yet validated.

 

4 hours ago, Lordofgemini said:

1. Anything must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause and so on. This brings about an infinite chain of events of causes causing causes. which is illogical.

 

You assert that "everything must have a cause" and then contradict that assertion in the next sentence with "except the cause". 

Infinite regression is not illogical or absurd. I understand it is counter-intuitive... but illogical? By my understanding of the word, it is no such thing. Anyway it is a long winded discussion and maybe for another thread; I just do not have the time now. 

wslm.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in such discussions, first you should specify your concepts like: non-existence, nothing, something, non-existence of God and so on...

then you should confine the scope of discussion to a specific argument and go throw that argument in a logical and philosophical way. we can not have philosophical discussion then mention our guesses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2016 at 6:57 PM, Lordofgemini said:

Why does something exist instead of nothing?

Salamun alaykum                                                 

There are two questions: first “what is the source of existence?” and second “what is the goal of existence?”

We have no doubt that God is the source of universe and made it existence from non-existence. Yet here we do not want to enter that direction as you meant why does universe exist, instead of nothingness? The answer is the same answer of the goal of creation. There are, as you know, many narrations in this regard and this is the fundamental principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2016 at 5:23 AM, Enlightened Follower said:

You assume God is bound by physical laws like energy or matter if God is the creator of the time and space by default he is not bound by those laws i.e. and end in and of itself. That is the very meaning of eternal.

Why can't we call the universe god instead then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Because the Universe is not eternal and like all physical matter will eventually dissipate.

I don't think any physicist will claim that we know if the universe is eternal or not, so how do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 5, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Lordofgemini said:

Why does something exist instead of nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

There in fact is nothing.  Only God is Something (in fact He is the only thing).  

This is is what makes us ask the question.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Second law of Thermodynamics= Heat death including all of what is this universe.

Entropy has nothing to do with the universe being eternal or not. It just deals with what is happening inside the universe. Heat death wouldn't even be the end of the universe, it would just be a very boring place to be for life. IOW, a heat death universe would be eternal, but nothing much would be happening there.

Entropy is only one concept in our universe, it doesn't govern the very fabric of space. We are not yet sure if the universe will end in a big crush and start over (after heat death), or forever in eternal inflation. I am not saying either will happen, maybe something third, we don't yet know.

But what we know for sure is that we don't know if the universe is eternal or not, so how do you know that the universe is not eternal?

Edited by crispy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2016 at 1:15 AM, crispy said:

Entropy has nothing to do with the universe being eternal or not. It just deals with what is happening inside the universe. Heat death wouldn't even be the end of the universe, it would just be a very boring place to be for life. IOW, a heat death universe would be eternal, but nothing much would be happening there.

Entropy is only one concept in our universe, it doesn't govern the very fabric of space. We are not yet sure if the universe will end in a big crush and start over (after heat death), or forever in eternal inflation. I am not saying either will happen, maybe something third, we don't yet know.

But what we know for sure is that we don't know if the universe is eternal or not, so how do you know that the universe is not eternal?

Because an energy cannot exist for an infinite number of years and stay intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Because an energy cannot exist for an infinite number of years and stay intact.

What you have written is non-sense to me. What energy? Why can't energy exist for an infinite number of years? Do you think it will just disappear or what? Why does it have to stay intact? What do you even mean by intact?

You know what, don't bother.

I've tried to find a video that explains my position, and I think this one does it quite well:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:bismillah:

On 3/5/2016 at 10:27 AM, Lordofgemini said:

Why does something exist instead of nothing?

Salam Alaikom, why should nothing be 'there' instead of something!

On 3/5/2016 at 10:48 AM, Lordofgemini said:

It means why does universe exist, instead of  nothingness

Its sure is, but would that cause 'something' to exist?

Also logically something shouldn't have even existed.

With universe you mean creation and not just 'nature'. What do you mean 'its sure is' you mean nothing can cause something to exist! A forshadow sentence: 'There is logic and there is intellect and there is Revelation.'

On 3/5/2016 at 11:08 AM, Lordofgemini said:

 

That is true. But lets take a step back. 

We have 3 options:

1.Nothing  2. Something  3. God

 

There is not three but two options. What supports that 3 options is right while logical reasoning loudly says two options! Something exists and nothing else exists except that something and than that something creates everything. Here one can say what is the purpose of creation or why did that first something create anything at all, that goes back to attributes of that something example the attribute of adl-justice -.

Something, nothing and everything-everything = infallible human and fallible human and rest of creation -. This text below me help us to make our minds what we want to question so we can formulate a right question; until question-the key - is not made right to fit the lock we are not even in the half way to solve this thread as yet based on citations.

http://www.mullasadra.org/new_site/english/Paper%20Bank/Comparative%20Studies/Atiya%20Syed.htm

On 3/5/2016 at 11:38 AM, Lordofgemini said:

 

By bad for using the word 'logic' i tend to use it for common sense. Sorry.

Nature itself is a result of what 'is'. The reality itself is what we are bound to think in. What i asked was why does reality exist

I don't want to speculate that there was nothing first and then something came, that would be wrong. you said Nothing is 'unstable'. i took it as perhaps you meant that nothing couldn't exist and thus something did yada yada.

"Nothingness has no positive properties. Whatever exists has, and must have positive properties. 

...?
Therefore, nothingness cannot exist.  
Something must exist, necessarily (its absence is impossible)."

Something is missing in the above argument. You are jumping to the conclusion

why is there existence itself, how did even that existence come about. It shouldn't have been there. Its against nature itself for something to be just there. Nothingness. Or nothing positive or negative should have 'not' existed.

 

Big-bang obviously happened to something. but i think big-bang is immaterial right now. Lets forget we do exist right now, or the universe or the big-bang or God.

 

What do you mean with reality, you mean creation we see with our eyes! In this citation you should further explain or think over what you mean with two first sentences. One should try to write as clear as possible but anyways your persistence is good and that you asked a question more essential than the above citations am put comments on.

The question; Lord of Gemini says, "Why is there existence itself, how did even that existence come about. It shouldn't have been there. Its against nature itself for something to be just there." These questions are good, what am understand from it is: that something exists how does it exists or existence should not exists, or existence is first existence that we call something! The above link may help clear our minds to better understand the question to be able better move towards an answer.

Here i will recommend this post:

With nature you mean physicality or you mean also spirituality. Human being is made of both. If you recognize physicality one will not recognize God, but one will recognize spiritual sphere and if you recognize spiritual sphere one will recognize the physicality through spirituality. And when we say to recognize our self-nafs - its better because nafs is made of both but here also it should not be a fallible-our nafs - but the nafs of an infallible-basically infallible personality - because infallible personalities are purely and rightly humans.

On 3/6/2016 at 9:41 AM, Lordofgemini said:

 

 

By absurd i mean outside the comprehension of human mind. My question was at the essentially of God and/or of 'something' instead of nothing.

This is a good sentence and clarifies your question and thoughts on the question better.

On 3/6/2016 at 9:55 AM, Lordofgemini said:

 

 

Yes its clearly logical that from nothing comes nothing, and thus something must have existed. But while taking a step back(which i deliberately want to take for understandings sake) we realize that something to have existed forever is a logical fallacy.

Pushing the question to physicists is not wise in this case as all it demands is reasoning, lets take your own example. Stephen Hawking says that the universe is a great ocean of energy fields. Again this here he is talking about the condition pre big-bang before which is an eternity - of something that is a improbable and illogical as something can't just exist. Because there should have been nothing instead of something.

The evidence is the existence of the impossibility i.e. something/us. 

Existence of a causeless cause is the only necessity.

The second sentence, how can something have existed forever be a logical fallacy! Here lastly i would recommend this small pdf or booklet with 3 hadith that needs to be readed again and again: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6rz5f3vgj1rywy0/uZ-EylsEp1/God%20in%20Islamic%20Traditions%20-%20A%20Glance%20at%20Al-Tawhid%20by%20Shaykh%20Al-Saduq%20-%20Dr%20Karim%20Aghili.pdf

The last two sentence please explain, so i can get it better.

Edited by Ali.Isa
refinement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...