Useless question, why is there something instead of nothing?

S

Susma Rio Sep

Well-Known Member
Messages
828
Reaction score
1
Points
0
There is a lot of writing on the question, why is there something instead of nothing?


I find this question quintessentially a useless one, except for one benefit, namely, that the people discussing it could come to the realization if they be intelligent that it is a useless question.


Why? Because there are certain things which are just there and there is no point in asking why or even how.

I don't know about other things of this category, but for myself the most useless question is why is there something instead of nothing, because if you postulate there is nothing, absolutely nothing, then you should not be around asking that question.

Any discourse among humans with intelligence must start from the fact of existence, if one starts from the socalled hypothesis that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, then why are you bringing up that question at all, since there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that includes you the one asking that question and postulating that there is nothing, absolutely nothing.



Susma Rio Sep
 
If it is a useless question... what does that make the question about the question?
 
It is a curiosity question that leads to our realization that it is a useless question, because the answer is that there are things and at least one thing has always been there to account for all other things.

It is the itch for us to analyze what is something and what is nothing, and to come to the certainty that something can only be understood in reference to us for being something and not nothing.

And that nothing is a pseudo concept, only understandable in reference to something that really exists.

And therefore we should start any discourse among ourselves intelligent beings from the point of departure of something, and never from the point of departure of nothing.

Why? Because if you start from the point of departure of nothing, absolute nothing, then you cannot even depart at all.


Look up any discussions on this question, and you will notice that they are talking about nothing but always sneaking in something, first themselves are sneaked in, the discourse participants, and then if you are sharp you will come to see that all the while they take nothing as something, not as nothing, as in nothing absolutely nothing.


That is why I am always dismayed with socalled science writers who talk about how the universe came forth from nothing at the instant of the Big Bang.


And for them that is the proof that there is no God maker of everything.

Yes, of course when they take nothing for something that is the point of departure of the Big Bang.

If you ask me, that nothing for them in being the point of departure of the Big Bang, that is God, which they prefer to call nothing for their own convenience in the confirmation of their own prejudice and bias that there is no God maker of everything.






Susma
 
I do believe you labour under a misapprehension then. Big Bang Theorists, (note it is theorists not factists), openly admit that their calculations break down a few billiseconds 'after' the bang, they cannot look back further to see what was there before.

All you Godists create your chosen nonsense from nothing. So while you may have set the question up to have a thump at science you have only gone and shot yourself in your foot. As my first post here stated if you think it a stupid question why ask it? Because you want to try and demonstrate your superior logic in saying science cannot have something from nothing but delusionists that go on belief rather than evidence can! That is crass. It is not superior. It does not even begin to make sense. And it shows how weak the theist arguments are.
 
Tao_Equus said:
I do believe you labour under a misapprehension then. Big Bang Theorists, (note it is theorists not factists), openly admit that their calculations break down a few billiseconds 'after' the bang, they cannot look back further to see what was there before.

All you Godists create your chosen nonsense from nothing. So while you may have set the question up to have a thump at science you have only gone and shot yourself in your foot. As my first post here stated if you think it a stupid question why ask it? Because you want to try and demonstrate your superior logic in saying science cannot have something from nothing but delusionists that go on belief rather than evidence can! That is crass. It is not superior. It does not even begin to make sense. And it shows how weak the theist arguments are.
Click to expand...


Tell me, is it your postion that something can come from nothing, absolutely nothing?





Susma
 
I just want to find out whether everyone has the same insight as I have about...

Tao_Equus said:
Susma Rio Sep said:
Tell me, is it your position that something can come from nothing, absolutely nothing?
Click to expand...


No, including gods. I am also not a proponent of big bang theory.
Click to expand...


I just want to find out whether everyone has the same insight as I have about it being a useless question to inquire whether there was absolutely nothing and then there was something from that point of absolutely nothing-ness.​

No, I am not taking a knock at science, because realistic science does not propound that immediately and simultaneously before the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing.





Actually, the Big Bang theory as far as I know is not advocating that nothing exists, absolutely nothing, immediately prior or simultaneously with the event of the Big Bang.

It's just that there are some people who want to insist that it the Big Bang is the proof that the universe comes from nothing, and they mean absolutely nothing.

For my own part, I am of the conviction that if at all we want to engage in anything in our discourse we must start from the standpoint of there being something, and that if we start from the standpoint that there was absolutely nothing before anything at all began to exist, then that is an impossible point of departure, because if there has always been nothing, absolutely nothing, then we are not around at all to be now engaged in the discourse of whether there was nothing, absolutely nothing, and then something just popped up from this absolute nothing.


And there are people who insist that we cannot know anything prior immediately or simultaneously to the Big Bang because it is a domain where our intellect cannot have access to.

But they have the psychology which they mean that there was nothing prior or simultaneous to the Big Bang.

And they write accordingly that there was literally nothing, absolutely nothing, and they don't want to even admit that they would not be around to talk even now and here if there was ever nothing at all, absolutely nothing, before or simultaneously with the Big Bang -- if that is at all paradoxically possible.




Susma Rio Sep
 
Re: I just want to find out whether everyone has the same insight as I have about...

Susma Rio Sep said:
No, I am not taking a knock at science, because realistic science does not propound that immediately and simultaneously before the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

The latest theory that I've heard about is the Big Bounce which sounds a lot like the expanding / contracting universal theories bandied about 30 years ago. In a Big Bounce, the universe collapses on itself and springs back again, so there is no issue of something from nothing.

The science of the universe's birth is so new that I wouldn't put much stock in anybody saying that it sprang from nothingness. It's going to take more than our lifetime (if ever) to get a decent grip on what occurred.
 
Re: I just want to find out whether everyone has the same insight as I have about...

Susma Rio Sep said:
I just want to find out whether everyone has the same insight as I have about it being a useless question to inquire whether there was absolutely nothing and then there was something from that point of absolutely nothing-ness.​
No, I am not taking a knock at science, because realistic science does not propound that immediately and simultaneously before the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing.
Susma Rio Sep
Click to expand...
My apology for jumping on you and pre-judging your intent, I must have been having one of my Mr Angry days. :eek:

citizenzen said:
The latest theory that I've heard about is the Big Bounce which sounds a lot like the expanding / contracting universal theories bandied about 30 years ago. In a Big Bounce, the universe collapses on itself and springs back again, so there is no issue of something from nothing.

The science of the universe's birth is so new that I wouldn't put much stock in anybody saying that it sprang from nothingness. It's going to take more than our lifetime (if ever) to get a decent grip on what occurred.
Click to expand...

I think it will eventually be found that there was a very big bang a little under 14 billion years ago but that it just shook up what was already there. I think if we ever look beyond the blast wave front we will see galaxies being hurled before it. Already there is a catalogue of regions in space that defy the idea that everything is expanding from a single point. Vast rivers of galaxies defy the directional expansion of BB theory. Suggesting that there is turbulence within that expansion from matter older than the blast material. Which also goes with some anomalous spectrographic star aging that puts some stars as old as 17 billion years. I am hoping the two new space telescopes, Hershel and Planck, will give us over the next decade the information to clinch a lot more insight.
 
Susma Rio Sep said:
There is a lot of writing on the question, why is there something instead of nothing?


I find this question quintessentially a useless one, except for one benefit, namely, that the people discussing it could come to the realization if they be intelligent that it is a useless question.


Why? Because there are certain things which are just there and there is no point in asking why or even how.

I don't know about other things of this category, but for myself the most useless question is why is there something instead of nothing, because if you postulate there is nothing, absolutely nothing, then you should not be around asking that question.

Any discourse among humans with intelligence must start from the fact of existence, if one starts from the socalled hypothesis that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, then why are you bringing up that question at all, since there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that includes you the one asking that question and postulating that there is nothing, absolutely nothing.



Susma Rio Sep
Click to expand...

came across this pdf where in 2nd part heidegger discusses no _thing

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/sheehan/pdf/01-hd-wm.pdf
 
Susma Rio Sep said:
There is a lot of writing on the question, why is there something instead of nothing?
Click to expand...

The question is nonsensical. Any answer to the question would refer to a cause that exists (or had existed), meaning that any answer to "why is there something?" must refer to a "something". You can never explain why there is something, if what you mean is "why there is anything at all?"

All one can say is that there is something because there is something, but of course this isn't a direct answer to the question. The question can't logically be answered at all. I'd have to count it as a useless question.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top