Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Expand Messages
  • Arun
    Why is there something instead of nothing seems to have exercised western philosophers for a long time, though it appears to me to be after Christianity. Here
    Message 1 of 5 , May 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Why is there something instead of nothing seems to have exercised western philosophers for a long time, though it appears to me to be after Christianity.

      Here is an entry from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy:
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

      Here is another entry (of a series that got me wondering)
      http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4672

      The question doesn't even seem meaningful to me. "Why is there something instead of nothing" can only be asked in the context of a God that is outside of and independent of the universe.The secularization would make it possible for today's western atheist to find some meaning in it, and it can become a scientific question too, but unintelligible to the non-Christian Scientist. I'm wondering whether that is just me, or whether that is the Heathen in me.

      Maybe I can make a hypothesis -- "Why is there something instead of nothing" is meaningful only in the context of a religion.

      It should be easy to shoot down this hypothesis if there are Hindu or Buddhist speculations on this question.

      Anybody?
    • Aswin Sampath Kumaran
      What if all of it came out of nothing :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo Thanks, ... -- This Consciousness neither does rise nor set. It does not
      Message 2 of 5 , May 9, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        What if all of it came out of nothing :)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

        Thanks,

        On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Arun <macgupta123@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Why is there something instead of nothing seems to have exercised western
        > philosophers for a long time, though it appears to me to be after
        > Christianity.
        >
        > Here is an entry from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy:
        > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
        >
        > Here is another entry (of a series that got me wondering)
        > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4672
        >
        > The question doesn't even seem meaningful to me. "Why is there something
        > instead of nothing" can only be asked in the context of a God that is
        > outside of and independent of the universe.The secularization would make it
        > possible for today's western atheist to find some meaning in it, and it can
        > become a scientific question too, but unintelligible to the non-Christian
        > Scientist. I'm wondering whether that is just me, or whether that is the
        > Heathen in me.
        >
        > Maybe I can make a hypothesis -- "Why is there something instead of
        > nothing" is meaningful only in the context of a religion.
        >
        > It should be easy to shoot down this hypothesis if there are Hindu or
        > Buddhist speculations on this question.
        >
        > Anybody?
        >
        >
        >



        --
        "This Consciousness neither does rise nor set. It does not increase nor
        does it suffer decay.Being self-luminous,it illumines everything else
        without any other aid"-Drk-Drshya-Viveka


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • kanaadaa
        I have discussed this question with prosyletous Christians twice before. Once before I ever knew about Baalu & Collaborators, and once after. Before Baalu, I
        Message 3 of 5 , May 10, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I have discussed this question with prosyletous Christians twice before. Once before I ever knew about Baalu & Collaborators, and once after. Before Baalu, I would try explaining how the cosmos is infinite, boundless, timeless and is much greater than human imagination, that we are applying logic beyond its scale of meaningfulness. Saying there is no reason "why" it is here, did not get me anywhere.

          After I began to read the Heathen... I have begun to think differently. Asking "why" assumes too many entities and events, primarily intentionality. There are no grounds to hold that the cosmos is a result of intentional action, in fac there are no grounds to assume there is any intentionality at all anywhere. We should be asking "how" rather than "why". In every case we have asked "why" I asked my interlocutor to ask himself "how" and whether this makes any difference to the question that he is trying to resolve. After some requestioning, he admitted it makes no difference at all. But then he insisted that I still answer "why". I replied that I have no time for such trifles.

          --- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, "Arun" <macgupta123@...> wrote:
          >
          > Why is there something instead of nothing seems to have exercised western philosophers for a long time, though it appears to me to be after Christianity.
          >
          > Here is an entry from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy:
          > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
          >
          > Here is another entry (of a series that got me wondering)
          > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4672
          >
          > The question doesn't even seem meaningful to me. "Why is there something instead of nothing" can only be asked in the context of a God that is outside of and independent of the universe.The secularization would make it possible for today's western atheist to find some meaning in it, and it can become a scientific question too, but unintelligible to the non-Christian Scientist. I'm wondering whether that is just me, or whether that is the Heathen in me.
          >
          > Maybe I can make a hypothesis -- "Why is there something instead of nothing" is meaningful only in the context of a religion.
          >
          > It should be easy to shoot down this hypothesis if there are Hindu or Buddhist speculations on this question.
          >
          > Anybody?
          >
        • vnr1995
          They are called existential questions. Theologians argue that religion is answer to those questions. Balu showed that these questions can t be raised outside
          Message 4 of 5 , May 10, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            They are called existential questions. Theologians argue that religion is
            answer to those questions. Balu showed that these questions can't be raised
            outside of religion.

            Adolf Grunbaum showed that existential questions are ill-posed questions.
            But he doesn't show why such ill-posed questions exist. Balu's theory
            accounts for both facts.

            Adolf Grunbaum's paper "Poverty of theistic cosmology": http://goo.gl/3bPSH

            Balu's "the reality of elusive man?" also addresses this existential
            question. http://goo.gl/f9THn

            There was an exchange between Adolf Grunbaum and Indian cosmologist Jayant
            Narlikar about the same issue. The latter made fool out of himself. Maybe,
            it has to do with 7 layer burrito made up with Heidelberg, Pune, Sanskrit,
            Indology, etc!



            On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Arun <macgupta123@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > Why is there something instead of nothing seems to have exercised western
            > philosophers for a long time, though it appears to me to be after
            > Christianity.
            >
            > Here is an entry from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy:
            > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
            >
            > Here is another entry (of a series that got me wondering)
            > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4672
            >
            > The question doesn't even seem meaningful to me. "Why is there something
            > instead of nothing" can only be asked in the context of a God that is
            > outside of and independent of the universe.The secularization would make it
            > possible for today's western atheist to find some meaning in it, and it can
            > become a scientific question too, but unintelligible to the non-Christian
            > Scientist. I'm wondering whether that is just me, or whether that is the
            > Heathen in me.
            >
            > Maybe I can make a hypothesis -- "Why is there something instead of
            > nothing" is meaningful only in the context of a religion.
            >
            > It should be easy to shoot down this hypothesis if there are Hindu or
            > Buddhist speculations on this question.
            >
            > Anybody?
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • kanaadaa
            Thanks VNR.
            Message 5 of 5 , May 11, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks VNR.

              --- In TheHeathenInHisBlindness@yahoogroups.com, vnr1995 <vnr1995@...> wrote:
              >
              > They are called existential questions. Theologians argue that religion is
              > answer to those questions. Balu showed that these questions can't be raised
              > outside of religion.
              >
              > Adolf Grunbaum showed that existential questions are ill-posed questions.
              > But he doesn't show why such ill-posed questions exist. Balu's theory
              > accounts for both facts.
              >
              > Adolf Grunbaum's paper "Poverty of theistic cosmology": http://goo.gl/3bPSH
              >
              > Balu's "the reality of elusive man?" also addresses this existential
              > question. http://goo.gl/f9THn
              >
              > There was an exchange between Adolf Grunbaum and Indian cosmologist Jayant
              > Narlikar about the same issue. The latter made fool out of himself. Maybe,
              > it has to do with 7 layer burrito made up with Heidelberg, Pune, Sanskrit,
              > Indology, etc!
              >
              >
              >
              > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Arun <macgupta123@...> wrote:
              >
              > > **
              > >
              > >
              > > Why is there something instead of nothing seems to have exercised western
              > > philosophers for a long time, though it appears to me to be after
              > > Christianity.
              > >
              > > Here is an entry from the Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy:
              > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
              > >
              > > Here is another entry (of a series that got me wondering)
              > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4672
              > >
              > > The question doesn't even seem meaningful to me. "Why is there something
              > > instead of nothing" can only be asked in the context of a God that is
              > > outside of and independent of the universe.The secularization would make it
              > > possible for today's western atheist to find some meaning in it, and it can
              > > become a scientific question too, but unintelligible to the non-Christian
              > > Scientist. I'm wondering whether that is just me, or whether that is the
              > > Heathen in me.
              > >
              > > Maybe I can make a hypothesis -- "Why is there something instead of
              > > nothing" is meaningful only in the context of a religion.
              > >
              > > It should be easy to shoot down this hypothesis if there are Hindu or
              > > Buddhist speculations on this question.
              > >
              > > Anybody?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.