It's not that the laws of physics "break down" or "stop working" at a singularity - it's that we don't know which laws apply in such an extreme situation, and we don't - at this point, anyway - have a way to find out. There may be laws that supersede the laws we know
It’s unfortunate that we’ll never really know what’s inside a black hole. They seem to have fundamental secrets to the universe. Maybe if we get a theory of quantum gravity we’ll be able to explain them, or a theory of everything.
Yes, I completely agree with you. I get the feeling Alex needs to include someone scientifically educated to these conversations, given the lengths he goes to steelman theological ideas. Alot of the arguments from an atheistic/empirically motivated perspective seem so, shallow and unread.
This is exactly what "the laws of physics break down" means. It means the laws of physics, a construct we made to describe the world in the environment we live in (and more recently, in the experimental environment we can create or simulate) no longer describes what happens in the extreme environment of the singularity. Nature may/is still follow all the same principles, but those principles are not in 'the laws of physics" (yet)
amd there is nothing in increasing the size of the moustache such that it becomes coextensive with the universe that would obviate the need for an explanation of why there is a moustache. every moustache that exists exists either in the necessity of its existence or in an external cause. Alex's moustache exists necessarily. It exists necessarily and could not fail to exist!
As an agnostic, the only possible way I can think of to answer this question is that humans simply don't have the capability to comprehend why there's something rather than nothing. It is like trying to do a google search on a calculator.
In saying that, it doesn't mean there isn't anything answer that could be explained eventually. It's just the newest version of "why lightning?". And what we feel in terms of absolute hopelessness of the question is what our forefathers thought of when looking at the stars. Maybe.
@@Omagadam1I dunno - I think it’s fully possible that there might be things out there that we just don’t have the right kinds of minds to think about, in the same way that we wouldn’t expect a spider or a dog or an Australopithecus to be able to think about certain problems. At the same time your lightning comparison is pretty compelling. But I think it would be bizarre if we were the exception to that rule and had the right sort of brain to solve every problem with no limits.
What do you mean? The title is literally the topic, lol. Edit. Well, he edited the comment, so now mine doesn't make sense anymore, lol. I still dont get what he means
“In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” - Carl Sagan
@@simonubovic6209 that is not the definition of a God. That would d one definition, but thousands of gods exist. Typical definition of god is: noun noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god"
That presupposes existence. There's a lot more "nothing" out there than there is "something", which seems to imply that nothingness is the status quo and anything above that is an anomaly. It's kind of like saying life is fundamental and non-life is just a concept. It presupposes that life is the status quo when we know it isn't.
@@bloopboop9320there is actually none of nothing we have observed in the real world. There is always fluctuations in a vacuum. That's not an argument, but observed fact of reality
@@MyNameIsThe_Sun All the more reason to question atheists who claim that we don't know where the universe comes from. It's a fine line not knowing; and knowing it didn't come from nothing.
I can easily conceive of the existence of physical matter being necessary. When you boil it down though, it's irrelevant as, if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to notice. The puddle analogy applies
Hi Alex. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?? ‘Nothing’ doesn’t have any rules (or axioms or laws). So, for example, nothing doesn’t have to follow any notion of conservation of mass or energy. ANY amount of mass-energy can appear from ‘nothing’, because nothing isn’t governed in any way. ANY universe, controlled by ANY set of laws may be ‘generated’ by ‘nothing’, because nothing doesn’t have any limits whatsoever. [Once you grasp this, you have taken a small step on a long (and very wild) journey. Alex, I insist you start on the journey, because there is something truly astounding on the way. Be astounded.]
I always have to rewind and re-listen to about 10 minutes of and discussion after someone say about rolling a dice and getting 1 of six possible outcomes as through the decades I can hear my teenage self saying 'you need to re-roll that' after the dice came to rest 'cocked' on its edge against some object (and don't get me started on the possibility of a coin flip landing on its edge).
All metaphysical questions are unanswerable. This includes questions around axiology. That's why we have philosophy. So that every individual can choose the story they like most.
There is no such thing as nothing. By definition, it cannot exist. Therefore the only option is for there to be something. That seems the most logical answer to me, but it also provides an interesting place from which to reexamine other questions. For example it appears to make the universe both finite and infinite simultaneously. It also does away with any worries that consciousness ceases to exist when we die.
The problem with your last statement is that consciousness is not a fundamental existence, but an emergent one. When the brain dies, the fundamental components of the brain continue to exist, they just change state and arrangement. However, the emergent property of consciousness only exists while the fundamental material remains in a certain state and arrangement, which is only a temporary circumstance. So in actuality, consciousness can still cease to exist in your framework. After all, your consciousness did not always exist, so there is no reason to believe it will always persist, sadly.
@@falsevacuum4667 Yes i agree, although i tend to think the term 'emergent consciousness' still muddies the water by continuing to suggest that consciousness is a 'thing' that come into being. I feel like it's neater to describe consciousness as the outcome or product of the human body functioning, in the way that music is the product of a piano functioning. When the piano breaks down the music stops, but it wouldn't make sense to ask where the music goes after. However my point about consciousness not ending was more to do with how we experience our own deaths. When a melody stops, we experience silence; when a movie ends we experience a black screen. But if we accept that there is no such thing as nothing, how do we experience the cessation of consciousness? It would seem that, from the perspective of the dying, death is logically impossible.
I'd argue that nothing is really a concept that we came up with to describe the lack of things. If there's true nothing, there's no observer to make the observation and label it as "nothing".
I always described sorta the same thing but a bit differently. I'd say we simply can not define nothing because by labeling it, we make it something. Does that mean that true nothingness doesn't exist? Not really, but we simply can not conceptualize it in any true manner.
My rhetoric for why something exists is always very singular. If nothing exists then there has to be something for there to be nothing of. Therefore something does exist.
Nobody knows either science or religion though religion says it does know. I agree we don't have the understanding or technology to answer that question.saying I don't know is not a cop out.
There can't *be* nothing. It's a contradiction in the question. The use of the word "is" implies the existence of something. To say "we have explanations for every object within the universe, why can't we explain the entire universe?" seems like a category error to me. Just because explanation applies to any particular object, that doesn't mean it applies to the totality of existence itself.
It was glossed over quickly, but QM describes the answer in MY humble opinion.. Quantum field fluctuations are the simplest non- philosophical answer.. Put another way, nothingness is explosively unstable..?
Nothing is impossible to imagine because then it would be something. Nothing is lack of distinction, field of sameness. Difference or contrast create something. What are we trying to achieve asking this question?
The Great British philosopher John Lennox keeps saying that we can only do science because the universe is created intelligible. Unfortunately the world is not "created" with the ability to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing. Philosophy just asks questions, it does not answer them.
There is no such thing as NOTHING because you can't not imagine something The question assumes there is such a thing as nothing Why is there nothing but something ???
I get the feeling Alex treads a fine line of equating scientific positions that is based on empirical evidence to theological/philosophical arguments/positions. When a scientist defines "nothing" its backed by real world phenomenon, not an argument for its sake. Another thing is that at the moment of the big bang, physics breaks down, but only physics as we know it. There is no implication that whatever the mechanics of the big bang weren't constrained by an unknown set of physical law. I feel like when it comes to using scientific arguments, you should really include in these conversations a scientist, rather than just an atheist or a philosopher. You go to such lengths to steelman theological perspectives, its a bit disappointing not to see it done for the other side. There is a modern philosophical world view (with as many if not less holes compared to theological ones) informed by modern scientific knowledge. I hope to see that content explored on your channel!
physics “not as we know it” at the beginning of the universe (in a materialist reality) would still have to bend to laws of metaphysical conception, no? Therefore it’s surely not unreasonable to impose some sort of theological rails on this discussion
Nothing implies something. We can’t conceptualize nothing because it would be a lack of concept. The place where human beings exist is the intersection of dimensions. This is the only way things could be and we are in the unique place to access all of it. We are the line between Yin and Yang. When we want one or the other we go out of balance. Could nothing have existed??? It does! We have nothing and something at our finger tips. Isn’t undefined the same as everything? Nothing and something are two sides of the same coin, they are one… the premise of the question is flawed. Abundance is the only way things could exist if it wasn’t it wouldn’t. I’d enjoy hearing what you think.
People are really bad in this mechanistic approach. That’s why this question is formed in the way it is formed and not: HOW is there something rather than nothing? We like to think about ourselves as a logical, rational beings but that’s simply not true. We constantly think about „why” no „how” because it’s more natural for us. Frequently wrong but natural :)
Okay the atheist conclusion of something is necessary isn’t coherent because what makes something necessary. I think it’s not backed by logic just to say something is necessary just to stay logical about your conclusions
If we define "nothing" as something that lacks any and all conceivable properties, then imo that is self-contradictory. To define it is to give it a nontrivial property. I think the conclusion is that a true philosophical nothingness cannot exist. A world in which this specific sense of nothing is what there is just isn't a possible world. What actually exists is a completely different question, but it seems to me, even coherently talking about nothingness, in this sense, is impossible. So, I don't think we're equipped to answer the question because I don't think the question itself is sensible.
1.define what "nothing" means 2. determine if there is good reason to think it was ever a state that obtained When it comes to philosophical nothing, I haven't heard anybody defend the idea that ever was a state that obtained, There was always something, even if that was just a background that had quantum fluctuations randomly and spontaneously happening in it, is where people I've heard before have always gone. It is fiendishly difficult, as shown here, to conceive of what coming from a philosophical nothing would even mean. I think it's better to ask, not what brought God into existence, but what did God bring everything into existence _from?_ Nothing or _materia?_ A theist who says "nothing" is special pleading because this argument proceeded from the premise it's not possible to have something come from nothing. Bring a god into the equation, and apparently, all of a sudden, it's not impossible any more? Why not? They don't lay the foundation required for that not to be special pleading. It's just baldly asserted. I also enjoy asking how they know God isn't an emergent phenomenon of the universe, flipping the question on its head. There is no good reason that can be provided that rejects that as an idea. "We've seen things come in and out of existence." Ouch. I think that needs rewording. We've seen the Platonic forms of things come in and out of existence, but we haven't seen them materially come in and out of existence. The material, even if as energy, has existed as long as the universe as far as we can tell.
“Coming from” and “was always something” both makes assumptions that fail under “philosophical nothing” - they both assume the existence of time, directly or indirectly. For X to “come from” Y, X must exist “before” Y. Problem is, you cannot have “before time”, as that makes zero sense. Time is the sequence of all events. An event before all events is a contradiction (as it is not before itself). There “was always something” yes. But mostly because “always” kind of implies “for as long as time existed”. The question is, why time itself exists at all.
@@virgodem _"Time is the sequence of all events."_ Is it? That's how we _view_ it, sure, but is it what it *is?* Time can be also described as pointing in the direction of increasing entropy. Physicists are currently asking if there might be a second arrow of time, somehow related to the increase in information or ordering. Can entropy go on forever? Well, maybe. Can it be past infinite? Well, maybe, but it would be more likely if there some mechanism that resets it, like a Big Crunch.
@@RustyWalker Time isn’t defined by the direction of increasing entropy. That’s a statistical consequence of the motion of particles. Entropy is used to determine the direction of time, but it isn’t what causes time to go forward. If entropy were to decrease temporarily, that wouldn’t break the fundamental laws of physics, because the second law is determined by statistical motion of particles. In a very universal sense, yes. That is what time, by definition, more or less is. Alternatively you can refer to the physical dimension in spacetime of our physical universe, but for the purposes of the cosmological argument and understanding the origins of the universe, that is generally the definition being used.
Something has always existed. Time and space are infinite. Everything that can exist (including other universes) exists somewhere within this something. The Big Bang was a tiny fragment of something that already existed into the same something that already existed. The universe measures itself since the something it came from is totally aware of itself. Everything is possible within this infinite something but not within this particular universe. If our universe is a fragment of something, how close are we to the source? Are there other universes that are closer and further away from the same source and how would it affect them? Perhaps we're like the other animals and may never know. Then again, if we really are living in something that is infinite it might be just a matter of time.
The second law of thermodynamics to the logical extreme implies nothing is the end state of the universe. Entropy is the smoothing out of all matter and energy in the universe, but if the universe really is infinite - and as far as we can tell it is - the eventually all matter will become so spread out that nothing is the default
One=Zero=Infinity=Imaginary but One does not = One nothing negates itself, by nothing it has to be infinitely nothing for nothing to exist and the infinite sets containing each other containing nothing becomes One (in other words 0=1/inf therefore 0×inf=1) thus the set containing everything equals the infinite sets containing nothing in order to contain itself thus all is one, one is all, and everything equal nothing, becoming something, this is why there is something rather than nothing because for nothing to be all there is it must be everything thus defining itself with properties becoming a thing, it's absolute of infinity and 0 cancel each other out, it is the classic a unstoppable force vs immovable object, the answer is they have infinite entropy so they create new dimensions to move around each other, or can God create a rock he can not lift, or can God make another God and kill God, leading to an infinite regress of power of both simultaneously doing and not doing which contradicts it's own existence, so in the end I do believe in an unmoved mover (with zero entropy by being beyond the flow of time) but it is not infinite and there is no difference between nothing and everything. This relies on the premise that Existence precedes Essence based on the only thing beyond skepticism that is necessarily true is that the information of existence exists, we then extrapolate thoughts memory cognition and spacetime of I think therefore I am and synthetic a priori, it seems that properties of essence are emergent and contingent and can not self reference without containing everything otherwise the set contradicts with paradoxes and negates itself with an infinite loop of circular logic, so thought must keep connecting to other thoughts and not make a closed loop, we can derive so much by logic of hypothetical syllogism zeroth, first, second, higher order modal logic etc and rationalism and empiricism and synthetic a priori, but this won't be complete because of halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness, so for rules we got no contradiction, no self referencing, no closed circular logic, law of equality, halting problem, Gödel's incompleteness, no infinity or zero, set theory, identity rules, domain rules, and all the other logic rules from different orders and systems
23:46 yes, this got interesting two minutes ago, when Alex rightfully brought up the ontological argument for God and conceded the power of that argument and his inability to counter it. You’re now questioning what the definition of ‘possible’ is sounds like a freshman seminar with the professor has left for five minutes and the students are waffling on or one of Jordan Peterson’s perennial and hollow sounding but ‘what does that mean?’ As two people who have studied philosophy, and now spend time on RUclips pontificating, you must know if you have graduated from this collegiate level banter, that if the propositions follow you are obliged to accept the conclusions. This is not theistic apologia but logic, refined and taught by atheists for the most part at our current universities. To back out of this rigor when the conclusion is unpalatable for you, it’s to abandoned reason entirely. Then you start looking like the religious people you argue against. This self defeating approach is unbecoming of anyone claiming to discuss something “”within reason “
Could unicorns and other absurd magical beings exist? Yes or no? What it means to you for something to be possible? If everything's possible then nothing is possible too, right? So why there's god and not nothing? Or god rather than unicorns?
for an atheist, he should be satisfied to know that nothing is to simply say that you have a space-time of radius zero. the question of why, for him should be irrelevant. in the limit, all he can do is play with the consequences of noether's theorem, the laws of thermodynamics, and juggle the arbitrary universal constants and marvel at the infinite number of sterile and short-lived universes he can produce. each universe will be incommunicado from the rest. for a theist, the why was answered already. for a christian, it's even simpler: God is self-sufficient and self-contained, He didn't need to create the universe, or heaven. He created what He created because it pleased Him to create it, out of His own free will. to a christian, nothing can exist without God. nothing can be made to exist which is not logical, because God is logical. it is for this reason that mathematics is uniquely effective in explaining reality. non-logical things can only exist in the mind as fiction or imagination; non-logical things can still be entertained, and made up, in thought. as porky pig or bugs bunny would say, "that's all folks!"
I'm all in favor of talking about worlds that could possibly exist, but saying that a "possible world" already exists is nonsense, or at best unfalsifiable.
There is something rather than nothing because there just is. At the very bottom of reality there are only 2 possibilities. Something or nothing. It’s a binary condition. There has to be one or the other. There is stuff. It’s just the way it is. If there was a reason, then you wouldn’t be at the bottom. You’d then need to ask why was there that reason? And why that reason? The bottom is there is something. A brute fact.
Ugh, now you guys completely lose me. If atheist cannot answer the question without resorting to a universal necessity, then it follows that you have conceded to theists the validity of their argument. It then follows that it is not ‘up to people to ask how they feel about these arguments’ it is more forcefully their responsibility to accept the conclusion from the premises if they are unable to counter them. As atheist armchair, philosopher, you are obliged to stay within reason or abandon your positions entirely because the conclusions are not to your liking. In that case, you lose all legitimacy. And you use it by dent of your abandoning logic when the conclusion is unpalatable. For a second here, when you admitted that ACS cannot answer this question a few seconds ago. I actually had respect for you both, but lost it all when you jump ship to subjective feeling just now about a conclusion rather than encouraging yourselves in the viewers to accept the conclusions that necessarily follow from the premises. I mean this gently but forcefully as someone who went to graduate school for this staff, but this would not pass muster at a freshman level. You have got to see that. Professor spend a year or two, trying to get undergraduates to accept this point about logic before they can proceed into any serious study.
No, their position is that we don't know and cannot know for now, which is also valid. They engaged for the sake of the argument, but we can see that they just propose the "possible" explanations that we've. Also even with god, god created something using "nothing". So god just multiply entities 👍
Nothingness would be absolutely impossible. I think the question is silly. However, I think, "Why do things operate in an orderly fashion?", is a more interesting and harder to answer question.
While yes I do think that nothingness is illogical, there is no answer to that question that would make any logical sense. If we say existence is infinite then you are left trying to explain how a system can exist without a defined beginning. Then there's an uncaused cause (God) created the universe and that essentially is the same as the infinity question. How can uncaused cause exist? Regardless of any of the explanations (how can the universe come from nothing? How can an uncaused cause exist? How can a systen exist without a defined beginning?) the answer you are gonna get is always "It just does". Which makes the logical progression start and end into itself which makes it illogical.
@@nieto53 Everything that exists has always existed. Maybe in some other form. But NOTHING can be added or subtracted from existence. It wasn't caused. It just is.
@@Daniel-hp3tk When I say "orderly" I mean that atoms and molecules don't just randomly bounce around to no purpose. They form matter and living things. Evolution is a prime example. Why do living things get more and more complex over time?
'Why' is a fallacious question as it implies there must be intent. 'How' is the correct question and the only reasonable answer is 'I don't know'. Anyone telling you otherwise is full of shit ^^
Another thought, if matter is the something then antimatter is the nothing. They both exist at the same time, just not together. In other words there can't be nothing without something and vice versa. In this way nothing is kind of defined as something. Anyway, time to go back to my hermit hole.
There is simultaneously nothing & something. Something is interjected w infinite nothingness. In the perfect stillness of the infinite Dark void, the only eventuality which has relevance is motion. Motion becomes light, (THE ALL-SPARK) providing the contrast which is necessary to distill the OMNI-VERSE... In that motion is found the space & time for CREATION. Where there is no motion, there is no CREATION... ONLY THE PERFECT STILL SILENCE OF THE ETERNAL SONG, from which we all came. To which we all return. As a fractal extension of the ONE TRUE CREATOR, our purpose is to Create Through the motion of our consciousness. Movement is the basis of life. Without physical action, there is no physical movement to induce an alternate eventuality. As sentient singularities, motion & action is our power. All motion comes from the still silence and returns to it. This is infinite potentiality in expression. Another name for NOTHINGNESS is INFINITE POTENTIALITY.... In which, there IS the latentcy FOR EVERY POSSIBILITY OF EXPRESSION. The foundation of CREATION IS BUILT UPON PARADOX, As is necessary for meta manifestation. Something is just the inevitable result of infinite nothingness. ❤ there is no SEPERATION between the CREATOR & the CREATION. All of CREATION is unified into the GOD-HOOD, to which every quanta of sentience contributes. Therefore, though the prime source may have the capability to exist beyond constructs... this does not alter the inevitably that all constructs are manifestations of the prime SOURCE... THUS ALL CONSTRUCTS ARE PRIME SOURCE. EVERY SENTIENT SINGULARITY IS A FRACTAL REPRESENTATION OF THE ALL-SPARK. WE ARE LIGHT SEEDS OF THE ALL-SPARK... CREATED BY THE EVER DARK. INfUSED W DIVINITY FROM THE START. EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. The ONE true CREATOR has nothing to be jealous of, For all existence is an extension of his being. All words are HIS WORDS. ALL NAMES ARE HIS NAME. ALL THINGS ARE HIS THINGS. GOD IS NOT DIVIDED. GOD IS INSIDE US.
@DarkLight-Ascending "In the perfect stillness of the infinite Dark void, the only eventuality which has relevance is motion" What is it in the void that starts "moving"? If there's "perfect stillness", what instigates that motion? "Another name for NOTHINGNESS is INFINITE POTENTIALITY" Isn't this just like Krauss's bait and switch when he says that the "nothingness" that preceded the Universe in his cosmology was actually some kind of quantum field? In other words you're both redefining "nothing" as actually something that has inherent characteristics and starting from there.
The space of the universe is a thing. If there's space there's time also. So it's still a thing. The real "nothing" would be the thing there's OUTSIDE of space-time. Your word salad is just word salad. And also, how a paradox can exist in our world? Paradoxal things are only theoretical for a reason, lol
@@thedude0000 funny fact about me... I never knew I was gay as fuhk till Alex grew out that cute little Moustache. That sounds like it came outta Jordan's as again, didn't it? I so silly. 😘
@@bradklein8107 "a good answer" How is that a good answer? How is it any answer at all? What about God makes him "necessary" and "stuff or something" not? Well, absolutely nothing, other than you just saying so. Honestly, that's about as much of an answer as saying "f-ck you" and punching your opponent in the stomach.
@@brixan... I don't think I have a great answer for you, but as I see it, the necessity comes from the definition of God. If we see God as this uncaused cause, that is dependent on nothing outside of his existence, and one who cannot fail to exist, he then becomes necessary. I guess a good way to look at it and see the distinction between necessity and non necessity would be to look at our world. If God exists, and he is the original cause, then our world is dependent on his existence. For if God were to not exist, then we would not. However, it is important to see that if our world failed to exist, it would not affect God's existence. This is true because we are dependent on him, not the other way around. So to answer your question, there exists necessity in the being of who God is, which is why people view him as necessary. Hope this provides some insight.
@@CalebLove-ci8bv "comes from the definition of God" So all I have to do is define myself as necessary and I would become a necessary being? Cool beans. "This is true because we are dependent on him, not the other way around." Nah, God is dependent on me. If I were to die, God would stop existing too. As long as we are just saying stuff without demonstrating them to be true.
If there is a "maximally great being" it's certainly NOT the Abrahamic god. I can easily imagine a far greater being than that. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a more petty, narcissistic and self-contradictory one.
Our favourite duo is back! Conversations between such intelligent and persuasive people are always a delight
Intelligent, yes; persuasive no.
Affluent people and their families 😂
Alex and his friends couldn’t be more privileged if they tried
@@aroemaliuged4776 even if what you said is true, how the hell do their socioeconomic priveleges affect this discussion?
@@girgameth8031
😆
In every way possible
@@girgameth8031
Alex is now not a vegan brutalist.,,
Why.,
….
It's not that the laws of physics "break down" or "stop working" at a singularity - it's that we don't know which laws apply in such an extreme situation, and we don't - at this point, anyway - have a way to find out. There may be laws that supersede the laws we know
It’s unfortunate that we’ll never really know what’s inside a black hole. They seem to have fundamental secrets to the universe. Maybe if we get a theory of quantum gravity we’ll be able to explain them, or a theory of everything.
Yes, I completely agree with you. I get the feeling Alex needs to include someone scientifically educated to these conversations, given the lengths he goes to steelman theological ideas. Alot of the arguments from an atheistic/empirically motivated perspective seem so, shallow and unread.
This is exactly what "the laws of physics break down" means.
It means the laws of physics, a construct we made to describe the world in the environment we live in (and more recently, in the experimental environment we can create or simulate) no longer describes what happens in the extreme environment of the singularity.
Nature may/is still follow all the same principles, but those principles are not in 'the laws of physics" (yet)
People often confuse the question of "why" and "how." The why implies a sentient purpose, compared to how, which is simply about the mechanism.
In a universe in which there is nothing, there would be no one to think about why that is
Why is there moustache instead of no moustache
Metaphysically necessary tache..obviously.
I don't know but I think "go big or go home" on this one. Need something on the chin and or cheeks.
amd there is nothing in increasing the size of the moustache such that it becomes coextensive with the universe that would obviate the need for an explanation of why there is a moustache.
every moustache that exists exists either in the necessity of its existence or in an external cause.
Alex's moustache exists necessarily. It exists necessarily and could not fail to exist!
I love you guys
😂😂😂
As an agnostic, the only possible way I can think of to answer this question is that humans simply don't have the capability to comprehend why there's something rather than nothing. It is like trying to do a google search on a calculator.
In saying that, it doesn't mean there isn't anything answer that could be explained eventually. It's just the newest version of "why lightning?".
And what we feel in terms of absolute hopelessness of the question is what our forefathers thought of when looking at the stars. Maybe.
So, it's something "like" God? Something that is beyond the grasp of humanity. I'm an atheist by the way.
@@Omagadam1I dunno - I think it’s fully possible that there might be things out there that we just don’t have the right kinds of minds to think about, in the same way that we wouldn’t expect a spider or a dog or an Australopithecus to be able to think about certain problems.
At the same time your lightning comparison is pretty compelling. But I think it would be bizarre if we were the exception to that rule and had the right sort of brain to solve every problem with no limits.
Creation is built upon the infinite scaffold of nothingness.
What do you mean? The title is literally the topic, lol.
Edit. Well, he edited the comment, so now mine doesn't make sense anymore, lol. I still dont get what he means
Love this
Like modern money mechanics
Reworded,, "Everything is built on nothing..."
There is no sense to the statement, it is logically incoherent
Alex is so clear - delight to listen to
TL;DL - they don't know, they will never know, and will never achieve any clarity on it.
I think intuition is overrated. The brain is easily fooled by magic tricks
“In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?”
- Carl Sagan
God is by definition uncreated. He is the solution to an infinite regress
@@simonubovic6209 that is not the definition of a God. That would d one definition, but thousands of gods exist.
Typical definition of god is:
noun
noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
Really good conversation.
10:07 Whoever said that should get the Nobel Prize. It's the answer.
Existence is fundamental, and nothingness is just a concept. We have zero evidence to think nothingness is possible.
That presupposes existence. There's a lot more "nothing" out there than there is "something", which seems to imply that nothingness is the status quo and anything above that is an anomaly.
It's kind of like saying life is fundamental and non-life is just a concept. It presupposes that life is the status quo when we know it isn't.
@@bloopboop9320Isn’t empty space something? Like the universe before the Big Bang might not have had space as we intuitively think of it.
@@bloopboop9320there is actually none of nothing we have observed in the real world. There is always fluctuations in a vacuum. That's not an argument, but observed fact of reality
Fundamentalism is just a concept. And the fundamentality of existence is just your opinion...
What you deem "fundamental" is just arbitrary choice.
@@MyNameIsThe_Sun All the more reason to question atheists who claim that we don't know where the universe comes from.
It's a fine line not knowing; and knowing it didn't come from nothing.
"what do you mean by could" best unsolicited jordan peterson impression
I can easily conceive of the existence of physical matter being necessary. When you boil it down though, it's irrelevant as, if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to notice. The puddle analogy applies
Hi Alex. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?? ‘Nothing’ doesn’t have any rules (or axioms or laws).
So, for example, nothing doesn’t have to follow any notion of conservation of mass or energy. ANY amount of mass-energy can appear from ‘nothing’, because nothing isn’t governed in any way. ANY universe, controlled by ANY set of laws may be ‘generated’ by ‘nothing’, because nothing doesn’t have any limits whatsoever.
[Once you grasp this, you have taken a small step on a long (and very wild) journey. Alex, I insist you start on the journey, because there is something truly astounding on the way. Be astounded.]
If there was Nothing, there'd be no bulwark against Everything
I always have to rewind and re-listen to about 10 minutes of and discussion after someone say about rolling a dice and getting 1 of six possible outcomes as through the decades I can hear my teenage self saying 'you need to re-roll that' after the dice came to rest 'cocked' on its edge against some object (and don't get me started on the possibility of a coin flip landing on its edge).
The Bandit wants his car back.
Something is full of nothing.
I like what TMM says, i.e that question assumes nothingness is the default state warranting an explanation for existence of something."
It's a bit like trying to imagine the difference between 0 and null.
All metaphysical questions are unanswerable. This includes questions around axiology.
That's why we have philosophy. So that every individual can choose the story they like most.
I feel like Alex has a little crush crush, or maybe I'm projecting 😊
I'd doubt doubt that
There was never nothing, since there is now something.
That does not answer the question per se, but it renders it completely uninteresting to me.
Nothing is the one thing all by itself.
There is no such thing as nothing. By definition, it cannot exist. Therefore the only option is for there to be something. That seems the most logical answer to me, but it also provides an interesting place from which to reexamine other questions. For example it appears to make the universe both finite and infinite simultaneously. It also does away with any worries that consciousness ceases to exist when we die.
The problem with your last statement is that consciousness is not a fundamental existence, but an emergent one. When the brain dies, the fundamental components of the brain continue to exist, they just change state and arrangement. However, the emergent property of consciousness only exists while the fundamental material remains in a certain state and arrangement, which is only a temporary circumstance. So in actuality, consciousness can still cease to exist in your framework. After all, your consciousness did not always exist, so there is no reason to believe it will always persist, sadly.
@@falsevacuum4667 Yes i agree, although i tend to think the term 'emergent consciousness' still muddies the water by continuing to suggest that consciousness is a 'thing' that come into being. I feel like it's neater to describe consciousness as the outcome or product of the human body functioning, in the way that music is the product of a piano functioning. When the piano breaks down the music stops, but it wouldn't make sense to ask where the music goes after.
However my point about consciousness not ending was more to do with how we experience our own deaths. When a melody stops, we experience silence; when a movie ends we experience a black screen. But if we accept that there is no such thing as nothing, how do we experience the cessation of consciousness? It would seem that, from the perspective of the dying, death is logically impossible.
I'd argue that nothing is really a concept that we came up with to describe the lack of things. If there's true nothing, there's no observer to make the observation and label it as "nothing".
I always described sorta the same thing but a bit differently. I'd say we simply can not define nothing because by labeling it, we make it something. Does that mean that true nothingness doesn't exist? Not really, but we simply can not conceptualize it in any true manner.
Great Question!
My rhetoric for why something exists is always very singular. If nothing exists then there has to be something for there to be nothing of. Therefore something does exist.
Nothing doesn't exist, its just nothing.
Nobody knows either science or religion though religion says it does know. I agree we don't have the understanding or technology to answer that question.saying I don't know is not a cop out.
There can't *be* nothing. It's a contradiction in the question. The use of the word "is" implies the existence of something.
To say "we have explanations for every object within the universe, why can't we explain the entire universe?" seems like a category error to me. Just because explanation applies to any particular object, that doesn't mean it applies to the totality of existence itself.
But nobody ever asks how is something rather than nothing? and something rather than nothing is doing fine, thank you for asking!
No one asks "how is nothing?" either and tbh I'm not really fine 😞
FFS, please identify the speaker on the right!
It was glossed over quickly, but QM describes the answer in MY humble opinion.. Quantum field fluctuations are the simplest non- philosophical answer.. Put another way, nothingness is explosively unstable..?
How in the world is "quantum field fluctuations" NOT a philosophical answer? It's certainly not an empirical answer.
There is nothing - its just that stuff has been added to it.
As i currently understand things there is no such 'thing' as nothing. Outside of it's use colloquially.(I have nothing in my pocket.)
Nothing is impossible to imagine because then it would be something. Nothing is lack of distinction, field of sameness. Difference or contrast create something. What are we trying to achieve asking this question?
No need to achieve anything. We are simply curious, we want to know
The Great British philosopher John Lennox keeps saying that we can only do science because the universe is created intelligible.
Unfortunately the world is not "created" with the ability to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing.
Philosophy just asks questions, it does not answer them.
There is no such thing as NOTHING because you can't not imagine something
The question assumes there is such a thing as nothing
Why is there nothing but something ???
It’s funny, the cliche “nothing is impossible” seems relevant.
If there is nothing then there’s nothing worth discussing
I get the feeling Alex treads a fine line of equating scientific positions that is based on empirical evidence to theological/philosophical arguments/positions. When a scientist defines "nothing" its backed by real world phenomenon, not an argument for its sake. Another thing is that at the moment of the big bang, physics breaks down, but only physics as we know it. There is no implication that whatever the mechanics of the big bang weren't constrained by an unknown set of physical law. I feel like when it comes to using scientific arguments, you should really include in these conversations a scientist, rather than just an atheist or a philosopher. You go to such lengths to steelman theological perspectives, its a bit disappointing not to see it done for the other side.
There is a modern philosophical world view (with as many if not less holes compared to theological ones) informed by modern scientific knowledge. I hope to see that content explored on your channel!
physics “not as we know it” at the beginning of the universe (in a materialist reality) would still have to bend to laws of metaphysical conception, no? Therefore it’s surely not unreasonable to impose some sort of theological rails on this discussion
because if there was nothing,we wouldnt be here talking about it
Nothing implies something. We can’t conceptualize nothing because it would be a lack of concept. The place where human beings exist is the intersection of dimensions. This is the only way things could be and we are in the unique place to access all of it. We are the line between Yin and Yang. When we want one or the other we go out of balance. Could nothing have existed??? It does! We have nothing and something at our finger tips. Isn’t undefined the same as everything? Nothing and something are two sides of the same coin, they are one… the premise of the question is flawed. Abundance is the only way things could exist if it wasn’t it wouldn’t. I’d enjoy hearing what you think.
People are really bad in this mechanistic approach. That’s why this question is formed in the way it is formed and not:
HOW is there something rather than nothing?
We like to think about ourselves as a logical, rational beings but that’s simply not true. We constantly think about „why” no „how” because it’s more natural for us. Frequently wrong but natural :)
Okay the atheist conclusion of something is necessary isn’t coherent because what makes something necessary. I think it’s not backed by logic just to say something is necessary just to stay logical about your conclusions
Is it also incoherent for theists to say that God is necessary?
……. That’s a question.
If we define "nothing" as something that lacks any and all conceivable properties, then imo that is self-contradictory. To define it is to give it a nontrivial property.
I think the conclusion is that a true philosophical nothingness cannot exist. A world in which this specific sense of nothing is what there is just isn't a possible world.
What actually exists is a completely different question, but it seems to me, even coherently talking about nothingness, in this sense, is impossible. So, I don't think we're equipped to answer the question because I don't think the question itself is sensible.
1.define what "nothing" means
2. determine if there is good reason to think it was ever a state that obtained
When it comes to philosophical nothing, I haven't heard anybody defend the idea that ever was a state that obtained, There was always something, even if that was just a background that had quantum fluctuations randomly and spontaneously happening in it, is where people I've heard before have always gone. It is fiendishly difficult, as shown here, to conceive of what coming from a philosophical nothing would even mean.
I think it's better to ask, not what brought God into existence, but what did God bring everything into existence _from?_ Nothing or _materia?_ A theist who says "nothing" is special pleading because this argument proceeded from the premise it's not possible to have something come from nothing. Bring a god into the equation, and apparently, all of a sudden, it's not impossible any more? Why not? They don't lay the foundation required for that not to be special pleading. It's just baldly asserted.
I also enjoy asking how they know God isn't an emergent phenomenon of the universe, flipping the question on its head. There is no good reason that can be provided that rejects that as an idea.
"We've seen things come in and out of existence."
Ouch. I think that needs rewording. We've seen the Platonic forms of things come in and out of existence, but we haven't seen them materially come in and out of existence. The material, even if as energy, has existed as long as the universe as far as we can tell.
“Coming from” and “was always something” both makes assumptions that fail under “philosophical nothing” - they both assume the existence of time, directly or indirectly.
For X to “come from” Y, X must exist “before” Y. Problem is, you cannot have “before time”, as that makes zero sense. Time is the sequence of all events. An event before all events is a contradiction (as it is not before itself).
There “was always something” yes. But mostly because “always” kind of implies “for as long as time existed”.
The question is, why time itself exists at all.
@@virgodem _"Time is the sequence of all events."_
Is it? That's how we _view_ it, sure, but is it what it *is?*
Time can be also described as pointing in the direction of increasing entropy.
Physicists are currently asking if there might be a second arrow of time, somehow related to the increase in information or ordering.
Can entropy go on forever? Well, maybe. Can it be past infinite? Well, maybe, but it would be more likely if there some mechanism that resets it, like a Big Crunch.
@@RustyWalker Time isn’t defined by the direction of increasing entropy. That’s a statistical consequence of the motion of particles.
Entropy is used to determine the direction of time, but it isn’t what causes time to go forward. If entropy were to decrease temporarily, that wouldn’t break the fundamental laws of physics, because the second law is determined by statistical motion of particles.
In a very universal sense, yes. That is what time, by definition, more or less is.
Alternatively you can refer to the physical dimension in spacetime of our physical universe, but for the purposes of the cosmological argument and understanding the origins of the universe, that is generally the definition being used.
"why is there something rather than nothing" isnt a valid question. "why isnt we occupying an empty world", because then it wouldnt be empty!
I swear britts just want to hear themselves speak.
Is it that they want to hear themselves speak, or that the rest of us want to hear them speak?
You can't deny that Oxford English accent is pleasant
Something has always existed.
Time and space are infinite.
Everything that can exist (including other universes) exists somewhere within this something.
The Big Bang was a tiny fragment of something that already existed into the same something that already existed.
The universe measures itself since the something it came from is totally aware of itself.
Everything is possible within this infinite something but not within this particular universe.
If our universe is a fragment of something, how close are we to the source? Are there other universes that are closer and further away from the same source and how would it affect them?
Perhaps we're like the other animals and may never know. Then again, if we really are living in something that is infinite it might be just a matter of time.
Why is there a mustache rather than not
Why presume "nothing" is the default?
Also, if there were nothing, we wouldn't be here to notice
The second law of thermodynamics to the logical extreme implies nothing is the end state of the universe. Entropy is the smoothing out of all matter and energy in the universe, but if the universe really is infinite - and as far as we can tell it is - the eventually all matter will become so spread out that nothing is the default
I'm not sure I'm something, we're all bracketed by nothing, including the universe. God exists usually means give me money.
One=Zero=Infinity=Imaginary but One does not = One
nothing negates itself, by nothing it has to be infinitely nothing for nothing to exist and the infinite sets containing each other containing nothing becomes One (in other words 0=1/inf therefore 0×inf=1) thus the set containing everything equals the infinite sets containing nothing in order to contain itself thus all is one, one is all, and everything equal nothing, becoming something, this is why there is something rather than nothing because for nothing to be all there is it must be everything thus defining itself with properties becoming a thing, it's absolute of infinity and 0 cancel each other out, it is the classic a unstoppable force vs immovable object, the answer is they have infinite entropy so they create new dimensions to move around each other, or can God create a rock he can not lift, or can God make another God and kill God, leading to an infinite regress of power of both simultaneously doing and not doing which contradicts it's own existence, so in the end I do believe in an unmoved mover (with zero entropy by being beyond the flow of time) but it is not infinite and there is no difference between nothing and everything. This relies on the premise that Existence precedes Essence based on the only thing beyond skepticism that is necessarily true is that the information of existence exists, we then extrapolate thoughts memory cognition and spacetime of I think therefore I am and synthetic a priori, it seems that properties of essence are emergent and contingent and can not self reference without containing everything otherwise the set contradicts with paradoxes and negates itself with an infinite loop of circular logic, so thought must keep connecting to other thoughts and not make a closed loop, we can derive so much by logic of hypothetical syllogism zeroth, first, second, higher order modal logic etc and rationalism and empiricism and synthetic a priori, but this won't be complete because of halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness, so for rules we got no contradiction, no self referencing, no closed circular logic, law of equality, halting problem, Gödel's incompleteness, no infinity or zero, set theory, identity rules, domain rules, and all the other logic rules from different orders and systems
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because otherwise the question wouldn't be possible in the first place.
23:46 yes, this got interesting two minutes ago, when Alex rightfully brought up the ontological argument for God and conceded the power of that argument and his inability to counter it. You’re now questioning what the definition of ‘possible’ is sounds like a freshman seminar with the professor has left for five minutes and the students are waffling on or one of Jordan Peterson’s perennial and hollow sounding but ‘what does that mean?’ As two people who have studied philosophy, and now spend time on RUclips pontificating, you must know if you have graduated from this collegiate level banter, that if the propositions follow you are obliged to accept the conclusions. This is not theistic apologia but logic, refined and taught by atheists for the most part at our current universities. To back out of this rigor when the conclusion is unpalatable for you, it’s to abandoned reason entirely. Then you start looking like the religious people you argue against. This self defeating approach is unbecoming of anyone claiming to discuss something “”within reason “
Could unicorns and other absurd magical beings exist? Yes or no? What it means to you for something to be possible? If everything's possible then nothing is possible too, right? So why there's god and not nothing? Or god rather than unicorns?
for an atheist, he should be satisfied to know that nothing is to simply say that you have a space-time of radius zero. the question of why, for him should be irrelevant. in the limit, all he can do is play with the consequences of noether's theorem, the laws of thermodynamics, and juggle the arbitrary universal constants and marvel at the infinite number of sterile and short-lived universes he can produce. each universe will be incommunicado from the rest.
for a theist, the why was answered already. for a christian, it's even simpler: God is self-sufficient and self-contained, He didn't need to create the universe, or heaven. He created what He created because it pleased Him to create it, out of His own free will. to a christian, nothing can exist without God. nothing can be made to exist which is not logical, because God is logical. it is for this reason that mathematics is uniquely effective in explaining reality. non-logical things can only exist in the mind as fiction or imagination; non-logical things can still be entertained, and made up, in thought. as porky pig or bugs bunny would say, "that's all folks!"
I'm all in favor of talking about worlds that could possibly exist, but saying that a "possible world" already exists is nonsense, or at best unfalsifiable.
You two local to each other?
I agree there is something rather than nothing. That proves the existence of God. God is the Something in the nothingness.
No. Clearly it indicates that unicorns exist, you heathen!
Why is there something rather than nothing? Good question but it's not a Theistic nor Atheistic issue.
There is something rather than nothing because there just is. At the very bottom of reality there are only 2 possibilities. Something or nothing. It’s a binary condition. There has to be one or the other. There is stuff. It’s just the way it is. If there was a reason, then you wouldn’t be at the bottom. You’d then need to ask why was there that reason? And why that reason?
The bottom is there is something. A brute fact.
Ugh, now you guys completely lose me. If atheist cannot answer the question without resorting to a universal necessity, then it follows that you have conceded to theists the validity of their argument. It then follows that it is not ‘up to people to ask how they feel about these arguments’ it is more forcefully their responsibility to accept the conclusion from the premises if they are unable to counter them. As atheist armchair, philosopher, you are obliged to stay within reason or abandon your positions entirely because the conclusions are not to your liking. In that case, you lose all legitimacy. And you use it by dent of your abandoning logic when the conclusion is unpalatable. For a second here, when you admitted that ACS cannot answer this question a few seconds ago. I actually had respect for you both, but lost it all when you jump ship to subjective feeling just now about a conclusion rather than encouraging yourselves in the viewers to accept the conclusions that necessarily follow from the premises. I mean this gently but forcefully as someone who went to graduate school for this staff, but this would not pass muster at a freshman level. You have got to see that. Professor spend a year or two, trying to get undergraduates to accept this point about logic before they can proceed into any serious study.
No, their position is that we don't know and cannot know for now, which is also valid. They engaged for the sake of the argument, but we can see that they just propose the "possible" explanations that we've. Also even with god, god created something using "nothing". So god just multiply entities 👍
Nothingness would be absolutely impossible. I think the question is silly. However, I think, "Why do things operate in an orderly fashion?", is a more interesting and harder to answer question.
Define "ordingly" and highlight what operates "ordingly" according to your definition?
While yes I do think that nothingness is illogical, there is no answer to that question that would make any logical sense. If we say existence is infinite then you are left trying to explain how a system can exist without a defined beginning. Then there's an uncaused cause (God) created the universe and that essentially is the same as the infinity question. How can uncaused cause exist? Regardless of any of the explanations (how can the universe come from nothing? How can an uncaused cause exist? How can a systen exist without a defined beginning?) the answer you are gonna get is always "It just does". Which makes the logical progression start and end into itself which makes it illogical.
Good question
@@nieto53 Everything that exists has always existed. Maybe in some other form. But NOTHING can be added or subtracted from existence. It wasn't caused. It just is.
@@Daniel-hp3tk When I say "orderly" I mean that atoms and molecules don't just randomly bounce around to no purpose. They form matter and living things. Evolution is a prime example. Why do living things get more and more complex over time?
Why not?
Saying "magic is why, because technically magic could so thats a better explination" is basically what thiests say. Its really a non answer
I know it's random but alex has a lot of lip for a brit
'Why' is a fallacious question as it implies there must be intent. 'How' is the correct question and the only reasonable answer is 'I don't know'. Anyone telling you otherwise is full of shit ^^
So you don't know, and you have faith that what you don't know is not God. That is what I heard.
I see time as a human construct, since there was never a past and there is no future then there was never nothing.
Another thought, if matter is the something then antimatter is the nothing. They both exist at the same time, just not together. In other words there can't be nothing without something and vice versa. In this way nothing is kind of defined as something. Anyway, time to go back to my hermit hole.
Ask a theist...."Why is there a God rather than no God" ?
They would just default to the thought terminating idea of “faith” and “not for me to question”.
Be afraid harris...
Nothing is on a spectrum
There is simultaneously nothing & something. Something is interjected w infinite nothingness. In the perfect stillness of the infinite Dark void, the only eventuality which has relevance is motion. Motion becomes light, (THE ALL-SPARK) providing the contrast which is necessary to distill the OMNI-VERSE...
In that motion is found the space & time for CREATION. Where there is no motion, there is no CREATION... ONLY THE PERFECT STILL SILENCE OF THE ETERNAL SONG, from which we all came. To which we all return.
As a fractal extension of the ONE TRUE CREATOR, our purpose is to Create Through the motion of our consciousness.
Movement is the basis of life. Without physical action, there is no physical movement to induce an alternate eventuality. As sentient singularities, motion & action is our power.
All motion comes from the still silence and returns to it. This is infinite potentiality in expression.
Another name for NOTHINGNESS is INFINITE POTENTIALITY....
In which, there IS the latentcy FOR EVERY POSSIBILITY OF EXPRESSION.
The foundation of CREATION IS
BUILT UPON PARADOX,
As is necessary for meta manifestation.
Something is just the inevitable result of infinite nothingness. ❤
there is no SEPERATION between the CREATOR & the CREATION.
All of CREATION is unified into the GOD-HOOD, to which every quanta of sentience contributes.
Therefore, though the prime source may have the capability to exist beyond constructs... this does not alter the inevitably that all constructs are manifestations of the prime SOURCE... THUS ALL CONSTRUCTS ARE PRIME SOURCE.
EVERY SENTIENT SINGULARITY IS A FRACTAL REPRESENTATION OF THE ALL-SPARK.
WE ARE LIGHT SEEDS OF THE ALL-SPARK... CREATED BY THE EVER DARK. INfUSED W DIVINITY FROM THE START. EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE.
The ONE true CREATOR
has nothing to be jealous of,
For all existence is an extension of his being.
All words are HIS WORDS.
ALL NAMES ARE HIS NAME.
ALL THINGS ARE HIS THINGS.
GOD IS NOT DIVIDED.
GOD IS INSIDE US.
@DarkLight-Ascending "In the perfect stillness of the infinite Dark void, the only eventuality which has relevance is motion"
What is it in the void that starts "moving"?
If there's "perfect stillness", what instigates that motion?
"Another name for NOTHINGNESS is INFINITE POTENTIALITY"
Isn't this just like Krauss's bait and switch when he says that the "nothingness" that preceded the Universe in his cosmology was actually some kind of quantum field? In other words you're both redefining "nothing" as actually something that has inherent characteristics and starting from there.
someone visited the jordan peterson word salad generator website 🙄
@@thedude0000
who is Jordan B. PeterSniffinson? 😂
This is Daen Dark-Light, Daddy.
NEVER FORGET...
The space of the universe is a thing. If there's space there's time also. So it's still a thing. The real "nothing" would be the thing there's OUTSIDE of space-time. Your word salad is just word salad. And also, how a paradox can exist in our world? Paradoxal things are only theoretical for a reason, lol
@@thedude0000 funny fact about me...
I never knew I was gay as fuhk till Alex grew out that cute little Moustache. That sounds like it came outta Jordan's as again, didn't it? I so silly. 😘
If the answer from theists is that god brought everything into existence, the question for them would be why is there a god rather than nothing?
I think a good answer is God is a necessary being and stuff or something isn’t necessary
@@bradklein8107 why is there necessity rather than no necessity?
@@bradklein8107 "a good answer"
How is that a good answer? How is it any answer at all?
What about God makes him "necessary" and "stuff or something" not? Well, absolutely nothing, other than you just saying so.
Honestly, that's about as much of an answer as saying "f-ck you" and punching your opponent in the stomach.
@@brixan... I don't think I have a great answer for you, but as I see it, the necessity comes from the definition of God. If we see God as this uncaused cause, that is dependent on nothing outside of his existence, and one who cannot fail to exist, he then becomes necessary. I guess a good way to look at it and see the distinction between necessity and non necessity would be to look at our world. If God exists, and he is the original cause, then our world is dependent on his existence. For if God were to not exist, then we would not. However, it is important to see that if our world failed to exist, it would not affect God's existence. This is true because we are dependent on him, not the other way around. So to answer your question, there exists necessity in the being of who God is, which is why people view him as necessary. Hope this provides some insight.
@@CalebLove-ci8bv "comes from the definition of God"
So all I have to do is define myself as necessary and I would become a necessary being? Cool beans.
"This is true because we are dependent on him, not the other way around."
Nah, God is dependent on me. If I were to die, God would stop existing too.
As long as we are just saying stuff without demonstrating them to be true.
If there is a "maximally great being" it's certainly NOT the Abrahamic god. I can easily imagine a far greater being than that. I'd be hard pressed to imagine a more petty, narcissistic and self-contradictory one.
I don't find the question any smart.