Why is there something and not nothing?

[Alan McDougall]

Stillwaters ,

Still waters indeed run deep and in your case you have proven the truth of this statement.

In the same way, we have the idea of zero- zero describes the lack of a number- zero doesn't exist in one way- the way that the thing it describes is non-existence itself- but in another, it does, as an abstract concept with meaning to us.

Yes we can get over the meaning of absolute non-existence by the use of words. But nothingness does not exist., I know I am using an oxymoron here. If there were only one quantum particle all we would have is existence, not the other mindbending impossible consept that words can not discribe

Hek like you I am trying my best, in vain, but gee it is fun!!

Alan

[Kyrin Blair]

RemoteTouch, you're my new idol, that was absolutely brilliant.

Honestly, though, we exist. And if you question it long enough, it just might change

I personally don't care what nothing is, or what is way out in the universe, or astral planes unheard of, because none of that concerns me. If it didn't exist, it'd make no difference to my life. I'mma keep on chuggin on my path.

[Alan McDougall]

Remotetouch and others

I surfed the web and found the Kabballa peace about God empying himself to make space to create. (interesting)

Isaac Luria’s theory of creation.
By Louis Jacobs
This selection from Louis Jacobs’ Jewish Ethics, Philosophy and Mysticism includes a translation from Hayyim Vital’s Etz Hayyim (Treatise 1, Part 2) with a commentary by Jacobs. The passages from Etz Hayyim are in bold, and Jacob’s commentary follows. It is reprinted with permission of the author.
 
Know that before there was any emanation and before any creatures were created a simple higher light filled everything. There was no empty space in the form of a vacuum but all was filled with that simple infinite light. This infinite light had nothing in it of beginning or end but was all one simple, equally distributed light. This is known as “the light of Ein Sof.”
.
 

 
There arose in His simple will the will to create worlds and produce emanations in order to realize His perfect acts, His names and His attributes. This was the purpose for which the worlds were created.
In the “simple light of Ein Sof” there emerged a will to create. (Note the way in which it is avoided saying that Ein Sof willed directly, because this is considered as touching on a mystery too deep for human understanding.)
 
Ein Sof then concentrated His being in the middle point, which was at the very center, and He withdrew that light, removing it in every direction away from that center point.
In the Lurianic kabbalah, creation is only possible by God withdrawing Himself. The logic is simple. Where there is God there cannot be any creatures since these would be overpowered by His majesty and swallowed up, as it were, into His being. This idea of Luria’s is known as tzimtzum (withdrawal).
 
There then remained around the very center point an empty space, a vacuum. This withdrawal was equidistant around that central empty point so that the space left empty was completely circular. It was not in the form of a square with right angles. For Ein Sof withdrew Himself in circular fashion, equidistant in all directions.

If the “empty space” left after Ein Sof’s withdrawal were to be depicted as a square this would suggest that after the withdrawal Ein Sof is nearer to the center at some points more than others, whereas the circumference of a circle is equidistant from the center at all its points.
 
The reason for this was that since the light of Ein Sof is equally spaced out it follows by necessity that His withdrawal should be equidistant in all directions and that He could not have withdrawn Himself in one direction to a greater extent than in any other. It is well known in the science of mathematics that there is no more equal figure than the circle. It is otherwise with the figure of a square, which has protruding right angles, or with a triangle or with any other figure. Consequently, the withdrawal of Ein Sof had to be in the form of a circle.

Ein Sof is infinite and it cannot, therefore, be said that He is nearer one point than another. The great difficulty here lies in the whole concept of a limitation of the Limitless.
 
Now after this withdrawal of Ein Sof (which left an empty space or vacuum in the very center of the light of Ein Sof, as we have said), there remained a place in which there could emerge the things to be emanated, to be created, to be formed and to be made. There then emerged a single straight line of light from His circular light and this came in a downward direction, winding down into that empty space.
Even after God’s withdrawal there has to be something of Ein Sof in the empty space otherwise nothing could exist there (nothing can exist without God’s power).

Therefore a line of light (figuratively speaking, of course) is said to wind downward into the empty space. The figure is of a kind of deep hole in the center down into which the line of light winds itself. In the empty space left after Ein Sof’s withdrawal, the various worlds emerged. In the kabbalah there are four main worlds, corresponding to the four infinitives mentioned. These are:
1) The World of Emanation (the realm of the Sefirot)

2) The World of Creation (lower in degree than the former); 3) The World of Formation (lower in degree than the first two);

4) The World of Action (or Making), the world as we know it, the physical universe (or, as many kabbalists understand it, the spiritual source or counterpart of this world of ours). All four worlds are seen as emerging in the empty space or vacuum.

Comments

alan

[mjm]

...Why is there something instead of nothing?...

This sounds like the begining of an apologetic for the existence of God to me...

The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists.

Norman Geisler used this as his starting premise for his version of the cosmological argument. More specifically, he used the undeniability of his own existence as his starting point.

...Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary.

Occam's Razor?

Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is.

Ah... Theory of Everything! 

...I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions. Why is there something instead of nothing?

I think I have a good answer to this question, and I personally find it satisfying. I'll get back to this in a moment...

 

...Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have “nothing”, but definite and absolutely do indeed have ‘SOMETHING’. This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you on this point. I certainly agree that something definitely, absolutely, undeniably exists, but the fact that one can conceive of a simpler model here (non-existence) doesn't prove the principle wrong, IMO. In fact, haven't you already established that we can't truly conceive of nothing anyways? How could we say that non-existence or nothingness is a simpler model if we can't even truly conceive of the model in the first place?

The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Now we're getting somewhere...

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?

As far as I understand it, these things break down at the singularity anyways, don't they?

 

...If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist?

Ah... now you're alluding to an infinite regression of finite causes. There's a subject that'll make your head spin if you think about it too long! An infinite chain of finite causes can be likened to a chain or series of dependencies, each dependent upon something else for its being or existence. But even an infinitely long string of dependencies can't exist independently; it would have to have been derived from something that isn't part of the chain. That something would have to be independent and underived; that is, it would have to be self-existent.   

It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question

I think the question is simply misguided. The question falsely presumes that nothing could have potentially existed instead of something. The underlying premise is therefore faulty.

That's my take on it anyways 

-Michael

[Alan McDougall]

Micheal,

God well thought out analysis and intelligent comments!! Thank you

This thread was posted more as a rhetorical question, My view is identical to yours the only explanation we puny mere mortals can give that God is "Eternal Existence" He is infinite and we just have to accept that!!

Many come to me when I pose this question and my above conclusion, with a counter question, then where the heck did this God come from?

You are right then we descend into the impossible scenario of infinite regression. My wife always brings up this "Who made God?" Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous 

( an old lady gave hear view on what held up the earth to a renowed Physicist, "A giant turtle

she said", the physicist responded madam, "then what holds up the turtle"? , to which she replied "Young man it is turtles all the way down"

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

Alan

[Mydral]

Micheal,

God well thought out analysis and intelligent comments!! Thank you

This thread was posted more as a rhetorical question, My view is identical to yours the only explanation we puny mere mortals can give that God is "Eternal Existence" He is infinite and we just have to accept that!!

Many come to me when I pose this question and my above conclusion, with a counter question, then where the heck did this God come from?

You are right then we descend into the impossible scenario of infinite regression. My wife always brings up this "Who made God?" Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous 

( an old lady gave hear view on what held up the earth to a renowed Physicist, "A giant turtle

she said", the physicist responded madam, "then what holds up the turtle"? , to which she replied "Young man it is turtles all the way down"

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

Alan

Yeah... if thats what you believe... go ahead. As for myself... nah God had nothing to do with my creation. Wouldn't even know where to start over which God supposedly created me or anyone else... there are too many, and all are "the one God". Not even taking into consideration all the "Gods" of all the past generations....

[Alan McDougall]

Mydrad

You have a problem man!! Come on!! you exist is that not enough? if you do not like your existence, well you know there is a way out if it is so terrible.

God had everything to do with your existence "case closed". There is only one "Infinite Being" and simple logic should reveal this to you.

Yeah... if thats what you believe... go ahead. As for myself... nah God had nothing to do with my creation. Wouldn't even know where to start over which God supposedly created me or anyone else... there are too many, and all are "the one God". Not even taking into consideration all the "Gods" of all the past generations....

Alan

[mjm]

...You are right then we descend into the impossible scenario of infinite regression. My wife always brings up this "Who made God?" Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous

I think I get your point here, but I wouldn't say one has to "abandon" human logic in order to reach the conclusion that God exists. I would argue in response that logic actually leads us towards that conclusion (or ought to, IMO). I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you said that God and Existence are synonymous though. I hope you didn't mean to suggest that whatever has existence is God... I don't think that's what you meant, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say the following:

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

Anyways, good chatting with ya... see ya around.

-Michael

[Stookie]

Alan - here are some of your quotes that I think other members here don't necessarily jive with:

Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous

God had everything to do with your existence "case closed". There is only one "Infinite Being" and simple logic should reveal this to you.

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

You have a problem man!! Come on!! you exist is that not enough? if you do not like your existence, well you know there is a way out if it is so terrible.

First, you say we must abandon human logic and just accept it, then you say simple logic should reveal that there is only one "infinite being".

Second, everything boils down to just believing, and most are here (I think) to experience and remove themselves from belief systems, not create new ones. To say "case closed" on the subject shows that you've already decided and made up your mind, which can limit further belief-breaking experiences.

If you take certain eastern philosophies, the goal of meditating on existence/non-existence or yin/yang isn't to come up with an answer, but to bring the meditator to an inner experience of something greater than himself and the physical universe, to alter and dissipate the life-long illusory concepts embedded in their mind from birth. Which was maybe your original intention with this thread - to get others to come to realization. But those who have the answer missed the point of the exercise.

[Alan McDougall]

Stookie,

First, you say we must abandon human logic and just accept it, then you say simple logic should reveal that there is only one "infinite being

Yes you are absolutely right, unfortunate phrazing by me! What I meant was God is beyond human understanding we just cannot in our finite way comprehend this awesome Infinite Being. He is Omi-everything and we most definitely are not?

Maybe our intellect is as far removed from his as a chockroach is from ours. I am not being disrespectful to humanity here, but just making the point that there is an finite difference between us and said insect and an infinite difference betwen us and God

When I said simple logic should reveal that there is only one infinite Being,I did mean just that. How can there be more than one uncaused cuase? There can only be one original cause of exitence?

alan

[Mydral]

Mydrad

You have a problem man!! Come on!! you exist is that not enough? if you do not like your existence, well you know there is a way out if it is so terrible.

God had everything to do with your existence "case closed". There is only one "Infinite Being" and simple logic should reveal this to you.


Alan

You know this is exactly why I don't like religion. It turns people, like you, into these closed minded beings. Seriously why are you on these forums??? I never said I don't like my existence, its pretty awesome right now, so don't suggest suicide.

Look here is exactly what religion is for me and why I don't believe in God:
Religion is the answer for people, just like you, who are overwhelmed or get depressed by questions like existence. Actually your overwhelmed by a lot of concepts such as morals, good and evil, doing the right things, etc. Hence you chose to believe in a God, it feels good and its damn easy. All of a sudden everything has an answer... you exist because of God, you know what to do with your life, you seem to have a purpose.
I don't understand why you religious people don't seem to understand that humans wrote the bible exactly to make you feel this way and to stop thinking. Its the first step to control people. You can use Christianity to justify anything.... all the way to genocide if necessary.... this is one of the purposes of it and it has been used like this pretty successfully.

"Good people can do good things without religion. But it takes religion for good people to do bad things."


And yes I do exist, I just do. Not because someone made me (well except my parents). There is no reason for my existence, there are no goals set forth for me. And no this is not depressing and I am not lost (as religion would teach you), its the simple truth. I make my own fate.

[Alan McDougall]

Myrdal,

You know this is exactly why I don't like religion. It turns people, like you, into these closed minded beings. Seriously why are you on these forums??? I never said I don't like my existence, its pretty awesome right now, so don't suggest suicide.

You know absolutely nothing about me and if you did you would see I am the most open minded guy you are ever going to meet I am absolutely anti-religion and despise anything exclusive. Does this mean just because i dint belong to any religious organisation that I cant rationalise that God exists in my own way

Believe what you believe if this makes you happy, but being an Atheist is just also a belief man!! "a religion just like the rest and in your case requires FAITH that there is no God out there in the great somewhere to welcome you when you die. You cant prove that there is no  God can you.?

Anyway I did not register on this forum to make enemies and I hope we can continue to dialogue as friends

I have had a profound near death experience and no longer summise the existence of God "I know God exists" and he is the absolute most anti-religious Being in his creation.

Alan

[Mydral]

Myrdal,

 

You know absolutely nothing about me and if you did you would see I am the most open minded guy you are ever going to meet I am absolutely anti-religion and despise anything exclusive. Does this mean just because i dint belong to any religious organisation that I cant rationalise that God exists in my own way

Believe what you believe if this makes you happy, but being an Atheist is just also a belief man!! "a religion just like the rest and in your case requires FAITH that there is no God out there in the great somewhere to welcome you when you die. You cant prove that there is no  God can you.?

Anyway I did not register on this forum to make enemies and I hope we can continue to dialogue as friends

I have had a profound near death experience and no longer summise the existence of God "I know God exists" and he is the absolute most anti-religious Being in his creation.

Alan

Yeah ok sorry.. ignore my previous post. I thought you were viewing God as the bible describes him etc.

[galaxy_storm]

hi Alan

"a religion just like the rest and in your case requires FAITH that there is no God out there in the great somewhere to welcome you when you die. You cant prove that there is no  God can you.?
...
I have had a profound near death experience and no longer summise the existence of God "I know God exists" and he is the absolute most anti-religious Being in his creation.

You say that god is "out there somewhere" and you still speak about HIM like HE was some kind of a person. I don't agree with that. I rather thing that "god" is everything and everywhere, INCLUDING you and me.


"God had everything to do with your existence "case closed"."
Yes. YOU had and have everything to do with your existence because you are an expression of "god".


There is no got out there, it is in here.

[loppoppy]

whooooooa far to much for me to read so i'll just throw this in related to the original post.

someone once said to me that everything we percieve as something is actually nothing. The true something is out of reach and incomprehensible to us as we dwell in the nothing. If we look past the illusions of sight, hearing, touch, smell and any other sense you can think of, then all there would be is nothing. and as all that stands in the way of this nothing are illusions, they can not be accounted for as something.

Something is yet to be experienced, and if it has been experienced, it hasn't been by any of us on this plane =P.
It's an interesting thought, it made me think if all of this is nothing, imagine what something would be like! it's something that can be thought about, unless you consider the whole statement to be absolute rubbish. but i like it =), maybe not true...but i like it =).