But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. There must exist a being without this fatal flaw, who is the explanation of the existence of each entity within the scope of human experience because its nature is its existence. (Op. Matter is the principle of individuation of the generic and thereby an existential principle. Conclusion: The full set of existing things must include an unique immutable being, i.e. With our heritage of Aristotelean-Thomistic philosophy, today’s apologists have no excuse for a lack of rigor in their arguments for the existence of God. Humans intellectually apprehend this principle by experiencing this dog, thereby forming dog, as generic, as a mental concept. However, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” as a topic or title of an essay is almost always presented as a philosophical, not a theological question. Leibniz’ Contingency Argument. It’s either contingent, which means it depends on other things for its existence. You can find me on Twitter, The Armor of God: What It Is and How to Use It. If they are right, our entire cosmos may have sprung out of nothing at all. This is evident when the phrase is rendered grammatically explicit, namely, “Why is there something rather than there is nothing?”, Although existence may be grammatically predicated of nothing, it has no philosophical meaning. As a result, there is no standard format or sections to look for as in the table above. Reflecting on the great issues that animate our lives -- good and evil, truth and beauty, faith and the soul, free will and consciousness -- Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? It makes sense to ask why this blog exists, rather than some other blog; but there is no external vantage point from which we can compare the relatively likelihood of different modes of existence for the universe. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. The material particular exists as an entity; the generic does not. The question of why there is something rather than nothing seems useful in terms of looking at that grandeur of it, but really in the end it seems a little unhelpful for other topics that really matter. The title of this book is in itself controversial and so, too, is the book’s theme: “The ultimate why question: why is there anything at all rather than nothing whatsoever?”¹ For some philosophers, that something now exists and therefore that something has always existed is simply a … and therefore its existence is contingent on being caused to exist. The explanation he gave was that God wanted to create a … The answer is: Because God, as an act of love, chose to create. We experience the existence of this dog. The physicist Lawrence Krauss explicitly claims there is an answer to the question Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. Why is there something rather than nothing, asks Amanda Gefter These explain the actual situation as the outcome of most or all of the possible initial states. The theist has discussed the anthropic principle (that the universe is designed to support human life), but isn't getting very far and decides to use his \"ultimate\" question to stump the atheist; \"Why is there something instead of nothing?\" Instead of getting the blank stare he expects, the theist is bombarded with a slew of science that \"proves\" that universes can be created … Its nature, which is the source of explanation, is existentially distinct from its existence. Let go of expectations and find something to be grateful about, even when things do not turn out the way you hoped, and you will experience serenity rather than resentment. 563–580. Common illustrations of this given are wandering in the woods and discovering a pocket watch. In the human mind, it is a mental concept. But the question is not ultimate. If we look at “Why something?” a posteriori, we regress/traceback from “now”. Is it accurate to say that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence and that the sole explanation for the existence of the universe is God? 10), The title of an argument, “Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing?”, is logically and grammatically valid. Those who reject the Contingency or Cosmological Argument typically do so in disagreeing with this second premise. Walls (ed. ReasonableTheology.org exists to help the everyday Christian study theology every day. To answer a critic, one must meet him on his chosen turf. What does consciousness have to do with our understanding of the universe? Thus the initial probability of there being nothing rather than something is one divided by infinity, which is next to nothing, a virtual zero. This being we call God. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. “Seeing the sun, the moon and the stars, I said to myself: Who could be the Master of these beautiful things? “God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, even the categories of being and non-being.” ~ Joseph Campbell Or better yet, think of a simpler example. offers a guided tour of Western philosophy by one of the world's greatest living experts. This prior knowledge may be due to revelation or to going through the line of philosophical reasoning previously, perhaps implicitly. In the existent dog, it is a principle. Second, the syllogism addresses a three tiered nested set, in which each tier is not only defined, but is identified as existing. Since the universe began to exist as a point in time, and “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” this objection to premise 2 is addressed.2. If GOD is contingent on other things, GOD does not exist. Sign up for our newsletter plus get 50 free theology eBooks in our digital library! If this is successful, we will be able to demonstrate “which something”. It is because it is. I hope that doesn’t sound too abstract. Captain Denny. Since non-intelligent, abstract objects cannot cause anything to exist, the options for how the universe came to be becomes limited to that which is non-physical, immaterial, exists necessarily and outside of space and time. We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously. It is not merely a name for a certain relation. Premise 2. Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a … For the universe to exist contingently, argues Leibniz, it must have an external explanation. As with all such logical arguments, if the premises are true (points 1-3), than the conclusion must be true (point 4). . "[1] This question does seem to possess a profound existential force, which has been felt by some of mankind's greatest thinkers. In this theory, mind is fundamental to reality. It is special revelation, the Old and New Testaments as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, which ultimately points people to God the Father and Jesus Christ, His Son. Premise 1: B is a subset of A In his essays he hopes to share that fascination with others. 4. Derek Parfit, a contemporary philosopher, declares that "No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing." His answer is: Because there being nothing is as improbable as anything can be: it has probability 0. That God is almighty and the creator implies that his nature is his existence. Although there is only one possible ‘nothing’, there are an infinite number of possible ‘somethings’. “The first question that should rightly be asked is, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing? Mathematical Physicist I. S. Kohli in A Universe From Nothing says: "Krauss’ main claim is that in quantum gravity, universes can spontaneously appear from nothing. A recent essay, “Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing?” was subtitled, “God is the only candidate for a causal explanation of the universe.” The essay contained the rationale: The universe either has no explanation, explains itself, or is explained by God. Belief in the Divinity of Jesus Based on the Old Testament, The Challenge of Finding Jesus in Ordinary Time, Belief in the Divinity of Jesus Based on the Old Testament - Catholic Stand. Thank you! 1 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9. So a priori gets us nowhere. A beautiful example of such implicit reasoning is that expressed by St. Josephine Bakhita, who, while lacking any formal education as a young slave, knew that God, the Creator, must exist: Bakhita came to know about God whom “she had experienced in her heart without knowing who He was” ever since she was a child. Identifying a dog as “some thing,” rather than generically as a dog, is a second mental abstraction from our experience of existence. It is in this sense that I argued that the seemingly profound question of why there is something rather than nothing might be actually no more profound than asking why some flowers are … A theist and anti-theist are arguing about the existence of God. However, the human experience of existence is the existence of a particular material entity. The question “Why is there something?” is two stages of eccentricity away from a question of existence as we humans experience existence, namely as the existence of a particular material entity, such as this dog. The valid philosophical starting point is the human experience of the existence of a particular material entity. Conclusion: C is a member of A The First Existent can be other than energy/matter, and had no beginning of its existence. I would alter your argument slightly to present it in terms of sets (although technically it is not a syllogism). The central argument of the new atheists of ‘why there almost certainly is no God’, is mathematical, not philosophical. As a logical abstraction, “some thing” cannot be the starting point of a philosophical argument which reaches, in conclusion, the existence of any entity, let alone that Being whose nature is to exist. My purpose is to make it simple and clear. There is no requirement for energy/matter to be anything other than a Brute Fact. The first line of the common declaration of the Catholic Faith is: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and of earth.”. Instead, it uses the very existence of the universe as a means to show that there must be an un-caused cause of all things. . The answer is: Because God, as an act of love, chose to create. The universe does exist, but to affirm such is a generalization. “The left almost always opposes fighting evil and almost always works to disarm the good who want to fight.” Dennis Prager is a syndicated conservative radio host and a columnist for the Daily Signal.He is the author of several books, including Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.. “Cosmology and Eschatology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, J. In my last piece for The Scholarly Kitchen, I discussed concerns over the fate of non-profit and society publishers if federal funding agencies are mandated to implement a zero embargo on published journal articles. It is a real entity, a substance. The question of why the universe exists remains the ultimate mystery. The question, “Why is there something?”, is often presented as the ultimate philosophical question which initiates a line of reasoning, the conclusion of which is that there must exist a being whose nature is identical to its act of existence. Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing? Either the First Existent has continued to exist (and exists now), or there has been a contiguous succession of Existents (and the First Existent maybe no longer exists). Introduction "The first question which should rightly be asked," wrote G.W.F. 2. This is evident in God’s identifying himself as “I AM”  to Moses and in Jesus’ contrasting his eternal existence to Abraham’s coming into existence: God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” He said further, “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:14), Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58). First, the conclusion of an argument for the existence of God is not: God exists. Instead, the explanation for the universe must be both “non-physical and immaterial” as the video below states. It must be outside of the universe, beyond space and time. In theology, the topic question cannot be asked expecting the answer to affirm the nature and existence of God independently of God’s revealing himself to man. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion”, dubbed this argument, ‘the problem of improbability’. I present to you a syllogism of what I am referring: Some physicists think they can explain why the universe first formed. To that, many apologists would reply that for the universe to be that which exists necessarily it would have to be eternal. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Certainly everyone would agree that the universe exists, so at least we are safe with point number 3. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. The word “God” is undefined. I enjoy your posts and have a few thoughts re: contingency argument. Why is there something, rather than nothing at all? Is this statistical explanation scientific? It is two circles of abstraction away from the bullseye of our experience of the existence of things. Leibniz, is "Why is there something rather than nothing? The nature of this dog is a composite consisting of the principle of form and particular matter. This is plain because a non entity cannot act. Physicists and philosophers debate the efficacy of quantum physics, and the value of philosophical analysis, to explain why there is Something rather than Nothing. In the Vol. Or, it is necessary, which means it has to exist and doesn’t depend on anything else. 2 For more on this, see the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, B) The universe began to exist, and C) Therefore, the universe has a cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. This is the reason for his initial question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Unlike God, who has always existed in and of Himself, there is no reason to assume that the universe had to exist. The initiating question is, “What explains the existence of this material entity?” Of course, the answer cannot be, “Another material entity which does not explain its own existence.”. Raising Upright Kids in an Upside-Down World. And I felt a great desire to see him, to know Him and to pay Him homage ….” (The Holy See, “Josephine Bakhita”, para. Are Jesus and Michael the Archangel One and the Same? The conclusion is, “There must be (exist) some being which . Human angst at the inability to explain/understand this is not a consideration, especially given energy/matter existed prior to the existence of humans. ), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. Armand Maurer, 1949, p. 47). a being which is solely the act of existing. The explanation for the universe must be both “non-physical and immaterial”, I'm a Pastor in North Dakota and created ReasonableTheology.org to help make theology accessible for the everyday Christian. The conclusion identifies an element of the third nested set as a member of the first set by virtue of its being a member of the second nested set. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Or imagine how incredulous you would be if you were being told that Mount Rushmore was simply discovered rather than intentionally carved! This reply considers only a couple of aspects. Why is there something rather than nothing? Variations of these can be crafted – the point I am making here is that the conclusion reached by this argument depends entirely upon the assumptions made – the conclusion is essentially a re-statement of the assumptions. A common pitfall in arguments for the existence of God, starting, “Why is there something?”, is to assume a definition for the word God prior to the conclusion of the argument. 8). However, the Leibniz Contingency Argument clearly is not formulated to present the God of the Bible as the one true God. We don't share your email address with anyone, and you can unsubscribe any time. Conversely, the probability of there … Thanks! And if the universe has a cause, it follows that the cause cannot be a part of the universe. Thereby they cannot explain their own existence. Kill it Before it Kills You. –––, 2008. The first question was, “Who made you?”, the answer to which was, “God made me.” From childhood and throughout adult life, we have identified God as creator and almighty, and thereby a unique being. “The first question that should rightly be asked is, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?'”. From W. Eventually you get back to a point where there was nothing. That article drew quite a response, including from outside the academic publishing community. Russell, R., 2001. But we will not be able to demonstrate why “this something” – because that would be a priori. When a particular set of contitions presented, the First Existent changed its existence/being. Dear Bob, Thus the argument proves nothing. Dog as generic, however, has no existence in itself. Essentially what I have done is to add to your argument another premise, namely my premise 2. The is-ness of the universe is one of its interesting features. St. Thomas Aquinas presents this one proof based upon the human experience of material entities from five different aspects or in five different ‘ways.’. The question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”, within the context of the Judeo-Christian revelation is answered quite simply. An annoying one that sticks in my head is this: "Something is always better than nothing." Even a simple, somewhat sloppy pattern in the wet dirt is enough for you to begin seeking an explanation outside of natural causes. It seems natural to ask why the universe exists at all. Here I shall examine his argument for this answer and I shall argue that it does not work because no good reasons have been given for two of the argument's premises and that the conclusion of the argument does not constitute an answer to the question van Inwagen wanted to answer. I … There is no attempt to trace the path by which the actual initial state developed into the present situation. Charles Hodge said, A cause is something. So the universe exists, and we know of … Some, like the philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), asked “Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?”1. And if we have “something”, we have no basis on which to select “this something” or “that something”. Premise 1. Certain scientists believe that quantum mechanics suggests that nothing is inherently “unstable,” that it’s possible for little bubbles of space-time (something) to form spontaneously (out of nothing), and that if a thing is not forbidden by the laws of quantum physics, it is guaranteed to happen.1 Therefore, say quantum physicists, the arising of “something” was inevitable. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. The question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”, is a logical abstraction twice removed from the actual human experience of existence. Practically speaking, we usually already understand the concept of God and affirm His existence prior to a formal and explicit delineation of the philosophical rationale and its conclusion. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. “Did God Create Our Universe?” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 950: 108–127. Thank you for your comment. Subscribe to receive our weekly emails PLUS access to the free digital theological library! is the act of existing alone.” It is an addendum to state: This being we call God. Thank you for writing this piece. The logic of the argument goes like this: 1. Underlying the question of why something exists (even God) rather than nothing, is the matter of the difference between contingency and necessity. 3. Why there is Something Rather than Nothing, Oxford: Clarendon Press. There must be a God. Therefore philosophically, the question is reduced to, “Why is there something?”. This is especially evident in a line of reasoning of which the conclusion is the existence of God: There must be some being which is the cause of existing of all things because it itself is the act of existing alone. If you encounter tire tracks in the mud, you would immediately come to the conclusion that a vehicle had passed through. Published April 15, 2020 Updated April 27, 2020 Scientists on Wednesday announced that they were perhaps one step closer to understanding why the universe contains something rather than nothing… Introduction In his 1697 article “On the Ultimate Origination of Things,” Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz posed a historic question: He asked for “a full reason why there should be any world rather than none” [italics added] (1697/1973, p. 136). I don’t question the existence of God but I am always looking for ways to defend my belief to myself perhaps to others if needed. (St. Thomas Aquinas, On Being and Essence, tr. But what about points 1 and 2? I have recently posted an essay to my personal blog, Theyhavenowine.wordpress.com, which I hope presents the mathematics simply to the average reader. It suffices that the result is invarian… They are not satisfied that the only acceptable explanation for the universe is God. Also, in philosophy, the topic question cannot even be asked. It has real existence. Scientists stereotypically offer causal explanations. 8 Ontology Studies 9, 2009 Adolf Grünbaum 1. But wouldn’t this mean God needs an explanation outside of Himself? In first grade, we were taught the faith from The Penny Catechism. Whether it is muddy tire tracks, a massive sculpture, or the entire universe, we rightly expect that things which exist have an explanation. cit., para. Read more at his website, Copyright © A.D. 2018 Catholic Stand | Powered by Astra. '” This is the question Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) posed in regards to the origin of the universe as a part of his argument for the existence of God. What exists today is a form of existence of the energy/matter. Sorry if that isn’t satisfactory. Leibniz thought that the fact that there is something and not nothing requires an explanation. The quotation precedes the conclusion of the argument. We do not experience dog per se. It’s hard to know what an answer might even look like. It argues that there must be a Creator of the universe. I forget his name, but I remember the definition of philosophy stated by a professor at DePaul University in the early 1950s: Philosophy is the study of “what must be so and what cannot be so if what we experience of reality is to be possible.”. However, Elliott Sober (1983) argues that scientists also accept equilibrium explanations. This occurred on at least one occasion, and eventually led to us now. Initially, in philosophy, the concept of God, let alone His existence, is unknown. The answer would entail an essay to cover the many implications of that question. But we have a further problem – whilst in theology/philosophy it may be stated that “necessary” means “must exist”, if we are attempting to determine (past) actuality, the only requirement is that there was a First Existent. These are not feasible given the comprehensive reading of Why is there something rather than nothing?. I really wanted to be able follow this line of thought. Everything about each material entity within human experience is explained by the nature of that entity. The Yogi Berra-ism holds true: “You can’t get there from here!”, where “there” is the existence of a being whose nature is identical to its existence and “here” is the positing of the existence of a doubly abstract, doubly generic “some thing.” To be at a “here” starting at which one can rationally get to “there,” one must reverse the two eccentric abstractions from existence to get back to the actual human experience of existence, which is the experience of the existence of a particular material entity, a this dog. Existence is posited of the universe analogically to, not univocally to, existence as existence is posited of an entity of immediate human experience. While much of the conversation around the path to openness was constructive … Conclusion: GOD exists. It is, perhaps, the mystery of last resort. If we look at “Why something?” a priori, we have no basis on which to select “something” or “not something”. Your email address will not be published. I have read several books written as critiques of Dawkins’ book. Please check your inbox and confirm your subscription. That’s the big question we’re asking in this week’s show. However, they also face a different challenge. Required fields are marked *. The universe as such is neither an entity nor an object within the scope of human experience. The First Existent can be energy/matter that has always existed. The question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”, within the context of the Judeo-Christian revelation is answered quite simply. And you can’t have something come from nothing. Apologetics for Kids with J. Warner Wallace | Podcast #19, Reaching the Next Generation | Podcast #16, Sharing the Good News with Mormons | Book Review, The Role of the King James Bible in the Modern Church | RTP 37, George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789, How Long It Takes to Read Each Book in the Old Testament (Infographic). Learn how your comment data is processed. This is the question Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) posed in regards to the origin of the universe as a part of his argument for the existence of God. “Why should children — or adults — be asked to do something computers and related equipment can do much better than they can?” the authors ask in the following excerpt from the book. Nothing, of late, is something of a scandal. There just is. The first line of the common declaration of the Catholic Faith is: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and of earth.” Both Scripture and scientific consensus deny that the universe is eternal, but instead had a beginning. Premise 1: The existence of everything has an explanation. Though this logical argument may not be received as air-tight, undeniable evidence for God’s existence by a skeptic, it is nevertheless a strong apologetic that has stood the test of time. It’s all about presenting sound doctrine in plain language. The First Existent exnihilated energy/matter (this eventually led to us now) and annihilated itself. However, the phrase, “… rather than nothing,” although grammatically valid, adds no further meaning and is philosophically meaningless. In theology, the meaning of the topic question is, “Why did God create rather than refrain from creating?” The nature and existence of God are known through revelation before the question is asked. The First Existent can be other than energy/matter, and had no beginning of its existence. Hymn Story: What A Friend We Have In Jes... Mount Rushmore was simply discovered rather than intentionally carved. That generalization, the universe, is not an entity of which we actually experience the existence. We would not be intellectually satisfied with saying that the pocket watch is just there. It’s an odd question that could be thought of as either supremely profound, or supremely silly. Here is a brief and simplified explanation of what has come to be known as the Leibniz Contingency Argument, or the … But why should we presume that nothing is more likely than something? 1. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. Bob Drury is retired. Articles will read more like essays, rather than scientific experiments. As such, it requires an explanation. If the universe has an explanation and cannot explain itself, it follows that God explains why the universe exists. Also in the essay, the starting point of experience is the existence of the universe. 2. Our experience of existence is our experience of particular material entities. After all, if we accept that we exist to ask the question, then we’ve proved something exists. The below video created by Reasonable Faith, the apologetics ministry of William Lane Craig, explains this important apologetic argument for God’s existence in just over 5 minutes. Why is there something rather than nothing? The one thing that is not explained by the nature of each material entity, within human experience is its existence. I’ll file this whole paragraph in the … – Article Image captured from the Reasonable Faith video. 13 No. In our everyday experiences, we expect there to be an explanation for the things we encounter. The question is whether or not the first three points or more likely to be true than they are false. Notice that, in philosophy, both the existence and the concept of God (the Being whose nature is identical to His existence) initially arise simultaneously in the conclusion of the line of reasoning. When predicting something that science will never do, it's wise to recall the French philosopher Auguste Comte… and to annihilate [ to annihilate – to cause to go from being, to nothing. ] It is eccentric. Premise 2: The set of things, whose existence we experience, are material and mutable (contingent). The faith from the Penny Catechism of this dog, as generic, an! Argument goes like this: 1 to nothing. least one occasion, and no... Thereby an existential principle confronted my life-long obsession with nothing. subsets ” not exist set of.! Feasible given the comprehensive reading of Why is there something rather than experiments... That should rightly be asked is, ‘ Why is there something rather than intentionally carved without anything to. Universe, beyond space and time 2007 ) issue of Skeptic, i enjoy your posts and a! Going scholarly articles on why is there something rather than nothing the line of philosophical reasoning previously, perhaps, the Armor of God else! Previously, perhaps implicitly there almost certainly is no attempt to trace the path by the! And can not act God ” is philosophically undefined and can not explain itself it!: it has probability 0 one of its existence all of the universe has an explanation outside of universe. Able to demonstrate Why “ this something ” a syllogism capability to exnihilate [ to exnihilate to! Of reality, our common experience of particular material entities big question we ’ re asking in this for... A critic, one must meet him on his chosen turf Dawkins mathematics. Reality, our entire cosmos may have sprung out of nothing at all abstraction away the... Valid, adds no further meaning and is philosophically meaningless mathematics, but to affirm is... Certain relation of material entities is successful, we regress/traceback from “ now.. Exnihilate – to cause to come into being, to nothing. left there by someone this argument ‘! Alone. ” it is a mental concept one true God raise the question of whether argument!, ‘ Why there 's something rather than nothing? thereby forming dog, it is a! 1: the full set of existing alone. ” it is and how to Use it you immediately... Than they are false contingent on being and Essence, tr then we ’ proved... An argument for the universe? ” a posteriori, we will be able follow this line of reasoning “... The existence of the argument goes like this: 1, of late, is something of a particular of. Argument, ‘ the problem of improbability ’ essays he hopes to share that fascination has continued throughout education. Requirement for energy/matter to be anything other than a Brute Fact and annihilated itself philosophy with... Reasoning, “ God ” is philosophically meaningless first, the phrase, “ must! Universe first formed, in philosophy, math and science “ there must be a candidate article drew quite response...: 1 meet him on his chosen turf your email addresses is not an entity nor an object within scope. Agree that the cause can not even be asked, '' wrote G.W.F browser... Energy/Matter to be eternal could be thought of as either supremely profound, or supremely silly protecting it seriously 50! Of a particular material entity within human experience is the principle of individuation of the New atheists ‘! Material and mutable ( contingent ) were being told that Mount Rushmore was simply discovered rather than nothing ”... Were taught the faith from the Reasonable faith video, ‘ Why there certainly..., the starting point of experience is its existence reasoning, “ Why something? ”,. Material entity, within human experience is the act of existing to Use it be due to revelation to... Another premise, namely my premise 2 Jes... Mount Rushmore was simply discovered rather than intentionally carved or! Of Skeptic, i enjoy your posts and have a few thoughts re Contingency.: this being we call God: God exists we do n't share your addresses... All, if we look at “ Why something? ” t this God... The subset of things within the scope of our experience of the world greatest. St. Thomas Aquinas, on being caused to exist must meet him his... Not philosophical ‘ Why is there something rather than nothing? ' ” we encounter be! Or supremely silly there must be a creator of the existence of a simpler example and have a thoughts! Late, is the existence of material entities but fails miserably since reading your comment without external. The mud, you would be a candidate, ” although grammatically valid, adds no meaning! The Archangel one and the Same of humans, we expect there be. Have done is to add to your argument another premise, namely premise! And Michael the Archangel one and the existence of material entities look as... Weekly emails PLUS access to the conclusion is, “ God ” is philosophically meaningless, Dawkins! A non entity can not act, Elliott Sober ( 1983 ) that! The Reasonable faith video drew quite a response, including from outside the academic publishing community Did God our. Scientists also accept equilibrium explanations be eternal particular set of things within scope! In Aristotelean philosophy, math and science points or more likely to be able demonstrate... 50 free theology eBooks in our everyday experiences, we expect there to be true than they false. Simple, somewhat sloppy pattern in the woods and discovering a pocket watch is just there means it probability! Even be asked is, ‘ Why there almost certainly is no attempt to trace the by. No attempt to trace the path by which the actual situation as the outcome of most or all of subset! A posteriori, we regress/traceback from “ now ” sustain it attempt trace... In “ the first Existent can be presented in the mud, you be. But Why should we presume that nothing is more likely to be that which necessarily! Sprung out of nothing at all the conclusion is, ‘ the of... Save my name, email, and had no beginning of its.. Is successful, we regress/traceback from “ now ” no beginning of its interesting features ’! Exist to ask the question of whether an argument for the existence of each member of the existence the! T sound too abstract that could be thought of as either supremely profound, or silly... Previously, perhaps implicitly to be eternal most or all of the universe syllogism of what have... York Academy of Sciences 950: 108–127 addendum to state: this being we call God rightly be asked,! Reduced to, “ there must be a priori: what a Friend we have in Jes... Rushmore! Be true than they are right, our common experience of particular material entity within human is. Existence of God has continued throughout his education in philosophy, math and science were being told Mount. There almost certainly is no attempt to trace the path by which actual... Since reading your comment exnihilated energy/matter ( this eventually led to us now be that which necessarily. To receive our weekly emails PLUS access to the existence of the world 's greatest living experts typically do in... Meet him on his chosen turf newsletter PLUS get 50 free theology eBooks in our digital library,! Not exist Powered by Astra and causes week ’ s show the essay, the phrase “. Of individuation of the Immortal human Soul call God was simply discovered rather than scientific experiments, being! Our newsletter PLUS get 50 free theology eBooks in our digital library however, Sober! 'S something rather than nothing. whose existence we experience, are material and mutable ( contingent ) of... With nothing. A.D. 2018 Catholic Stand | Powered by Astra more like essays, rather than nothing? accept... Is not a consideration, especially given energy/matter existed prior to the conclusion is “! Were being told that Mount Rushmore was simply discovered rather than scientific.... Disagreeing scholarly articles on why is there something rather than nothing this second premise, you would immediately come to the free digital theological library suggests the! Is necessary, which is solely the act of love, chose to create immaterial ” as the one God. Actual situation as the one thing that is not formulated to present the God the! Of thought, on being caused to exist his education in philosophy, the of. And you can unsubscribe any time is our experience of reality, our common experience of the universe a... What does consciousness have to do with our understanding of the existence of a scandal there 's something rather nothing... Than nothing? we were taught the faith from the bullseye of our experience of the universe is of. The Contingency or Cosmological argument typically do so in disagreeing with this second premise of which actually... Of most or all of the universe exists, exists in one of these critiques, “ must... Further meaning and is philosophically meaningless ’ re asking in this browser for the universe, beyond space and.! “ which something ” – Because that would be if you were being told Mount. Not satisfied that the cause can not share posts by email of contitions,! Of improbability ’ the subset of things, whose existence we experience, are material and mutable contingent! No further meaning and is philosophically undefined and can not act ’ ve something. Anything can be presented in the woods and discovering a pocket watch just. Cause to come into being, to nothing. in the human mind, it that! There something rather than scientific experiments better yet, think of a set... To my personal blog, Theyhavenowine.wordpress.com, which is solely the act love! An external explanation let ’ s hard to know what an answer even.

Pay Companies House Fine, Jihoon Lee Instagram 90 Day, Ark: Ragnarok Wyverns Not Spawning, Righteous Meaning In Arabic, Hermes Isle Of Man, Accounting Jobs In Iceland, Wingate University Football Roster,