John Polkinghorne - Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?

[@nsbd90now]

At this point in my life I find any mention of "God" to be rather empty of substance.

I wish it was empty. It's used to promote ignorance, bigotry and oppression.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

You are God.

[@dickwagenaar3684]

A few minutes in and I'm already disgusted by the man's statement that God doesn't need to be in order to be the creator of being. It's theological gobbledygook, like all of theology; it's all twisted logic, a pretzel all the way down. .

[@NFLDraft_Luigi]

I legit received messages from god after an extremely stressful time in my life. I told my therapist and they wanted to lock me up. but when you read the bible (which Im not a fan of) what happened to me is the foundation of everything in there. now try to tell a therapist today you believe in anything like the ark of the covenant and see what happens. and my therapist is jewish lol nothing has to make sense. thats something ive learned as ive aged

[@nsbd90now]

@@NFLDraft_Luigi No therapist wanted to "lock you up" because of delusions or hallucinations.

[@lanatrzczka]

This was very good. It made me rethink some things. Thanks!

[@jameskelso5311]

This interview is not one of John Polkinghorne’s strong suits. It advances the question no further, yet gives the tired reasoning approach of an inadequate reasoning system: Theology.

[@kentzepick4169]

@@jameskelso5311 It’s theology-so of course it’s bad.

@@kentzepick4169 yep

[@DeusExAstra]

As soon as he mentions god, i know this guy has nothing of value to contribute to answering this question. Literally stopped the video at that point.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@@DeusExAstra Why is God ruled out for you when it comes to explaining existence?

[@matusmahut7268]

@@anonymoushuman3657 because it just pushes it one step further, it's like saying this universe exists because it's a child universe of some other universe that always existed.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@@matusmahut7268 God exists because he cannot not exist. He is the necessary being that explains contingent reality.

[@matusmahut7268]

@@anonymoushuman3657 You can say the same thing about reality itself without god. It just exists because it cannot not exist. It's not very satisfying answer but it's all we have now to be fair.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@ What do you mean when you say reality exists because it cannot not exist?

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

Capturing God in concepts is equal to capturing him in a idol.

[@aiya5777]

You're contradicting yourself idol literally means an image, how could you capture the image of an abstract concept/idea? go figure

@@aiya5777 lol wut? Every image is based on an abstract concept, unless it just happens accidentally.

[@aiya5777]

Prove your bs then you go ahead and try to conceptualize and make the image of true trans-geometric structure and dynamics according to Leibniz's calculus, ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx I'm waiting for your bs image, what do they look like they look like your 💩💩💩, right?

[@aiya5777]

Prove your bs then you go ahead and try to conceptualize and make the image of true trans-geometric structure and dynamics according to Leibniz's calculus, ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx I'm waiting for your bs image, what do they look like they look like your 💩💩💩, right?

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

You have your own view of God. There is no one capturing God here.

[@dr_shrinker]

Because the universe is expanding faster than the particle pairs can annihilate one another.

[@newtonfinn164]

If God is being, then the existence of the world demonstrates, by definition, the existence of God. The only argument is about the nature of God, whether God is wholly one with the world or more than the world.

[@ronhudson3730]

More than and one with. We live as self conscious individuals. We think of ourselves as separate from everything else, when we, the universe and God are all one and the same.

[@realitycheck1231]

God is not One with the world. Even the bible says that Jesus, who is one of the Sons of God, repeatedly says that he is not of this world, and that the kingdom of God is found within (the mind). That means that by looking without (the world) you will not find God. God did not create the material/physical. The world is a mis-creation by the Sons of God by projecting instead of extending. A lack seen within and projected outwardly.

[@realitycheck1231]

​@@ronhudson3730I agree with you that it's preferable to be One with everything, but I don't think that focusing on the material/physical is what God does. God sees the indwelling spirit that he created, because he only creates that which is like himself.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@realitycheck1231 _"Even the bible says that Jesus..."_ Jesus is a fictional character.

[@realitycheck1231]

@@EvilXtianityIt really doesn't matter if you think Jesus didn't exist. The idea is the same. Eastern traditions use meditation as a means of focusing within. Do you think the Buddha didn't exist too? Many high level Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama, believe that Jesus was a fully enlightened being or a bodhisattva, a being who helps others become enlightened.

[@dennisbailey6067]

When people resort to,God made it so,end of discussion,we are stuck,never to advance.

[@stefanlepovic199]

you can not talk about physics and math and matter when you ask question like this one. Its beyond what is visible to ones eyes.

[@thomabow8949]

@@stefanlepovic199 There is an extreme breadth of physics, mathematics, and other empirical lines of inquiry that do not rely on sight as a tool. This comment makes little sense - why are you saying this?

[@jordan_8329]

​@@thomabow8949if you ask about the origins of the entire universe then you reach a point that physics and math as we know it can not assist. What preceded the big bang? What caused the particular laws of physics we observe to be the ones that govern our universe? Is there truly a single start point, or an infinite regression of causal events? These kinds of questions can not be answered by physics. Physics can help with speculation or theories on this topic but not firm knowledge.

[@thomabow8949]

@@jordan_8329 Many concepts in the past deemed unknowable by empirical means have had troves of advancement in our knowledge of them through said empirical means. The assertion of "cannot" is a curious thing, for that I would say the only appropriate position would be agnosticism. Regardless, I shudder to think of what would justify granting credence to philosophers and theologians and their conjectures over empirical inquiry when it comes to concepts regarding nature.

[@jordan_8329]

​​@@thomabow8949nature does not carry along with it a full blue print. We can make observations about the current state of things. We can speak with some certainty about the past and future. But when you ask what started everything then science alone is not equipped to answer this. There is a fuzzy line between some branches of quantum physics and philosophy. To be dismissive of philosophy and think that observations and measurements will ever let you peek behind the ultimate curtain is very naive.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

So even if there are infinite universes you won't get ours without God's fine tuning. Does he even listen to himself?

[@100percentSNAFU]

Well I would say by probability you could get our universe without fine tuning in a multiverse scenario, however you still run into the problem with origin and infinite regression in a multiverse scenario. So what is the prime mover, or the uncaused cause? Is it God? Maybe. Is it at least something? I would say for certain it must be something. Something must exist infinitely because something coming from nothing is illogical by the very nature of complete nothingness.

[@NFLDraft_Luigi]

To make love-Often overlooked in these conversations. Our universe is a substrate that disappears at the speed of light without us. We need time to make love, so it is. That’s the reason.

[@evaadam3635]

...but not the selfish kind of love...

[@Paine137]

Words.

[@evaadam3635]

@@Paine137 ... I think she is referring to the sincere love of our neigbors because of her faith in a loving GOD who loves all His children... and NOT the selfish kind of love that Godless people like you do, ie "to each his own" because you have no faith in GOD and so, you do not believe that we are all children of God to love and to care as all one family...

[@Paine137]

@ CAPS always illustrates a great argument. Make sure to thank your loving god for cancer in kids, rather than supporting your fellow mammals in defeating it.

[@shahidsehrai]

I think If there is an answer to the existence of God; it is in such a question"why there is something rather then nothing"

[@gettaasteroid4650]

I like how they brought in Leibniz in effect "kicking it up a level", it was akin to the Leibniz-Newton debate over whether the principle of sufficient reason derives the identity of indiscernibles. Except in this conversation there's the identity of indiscernible universes.

[@kevinvallejo7047]

I love it when you have John on the show!

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

The guest speaker is exceptionally good .

[@kakhaval]

We are used to cause-effect relationship in our day-to-day experiences. That can't apply to the whole existence. The above question is just wrong and silly unless we know the cause-effect relationship at such high level. It is waste of time given our limited brain.

[@llaffallott]

Exactly. Cause-effect breaks down with the randomness of sub-atomic particles.

[@garychurch9237]

The answer is...we are not smart enough to know the answer. If we become that smart we will no longer be even remotely "human."

[@mattcorcoran7082]

Maybe that’s our destiny

[@jago76]

I appreciate that this question is raised. But simply saying that "God" created everything and is exempt from causation is clearly a cop out.

[@evaadam3635]

...it is a rational choice of belief to explain our unknown origin...

[@jago76]

@@evaadam3635 It is just a matter of faith and has no substantive value.

[@evaadam3635]

@@jago76 ..it has value because it is a sensible faith way a lot saner than your "Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING" creating you - a funny theory that is not only unsubstantive but is making you look like a clown with a funny IQ....

[@jago76]

@@evaadam3635 No need to resort to insults. To me, saying we don't know and saying "God" is the answer is meaningless. Why not be honest and say we just don't know how everything was created?

[@evaadam3635]

@@jago76 ...the truth is not an insult.... though it may hurt your sensitive ego to realize that the theory that you spouse exposes how irrational you are for unkindly criticizing faith in God as unsubstantive, it can free you from staring at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama looking stoopid, doing you some good...

[@safiya4339]

He created “saints and scientists”, also genocides and politicians. We got to embrace the whole thing to appreciate His generosity!

[@tylermacdonald8924]

What is the point of this question? Why is there something? And how can you ever hope to properly address it?

[@johncronin9540]

Well, it’s a philosophical question, not a question science can even address, because one cannot address the question using the scientific method. Ultimately, it’s a question that we really cannot answer definitively.

[@AndrewAnderson-vb4pp]

It's like the pursuit of perfection , perfection may be impossible to achieve but that doesn't make the pursuit of perfection pointless

[@mickeybrumfield764]

It would seem the fruitfulness of the universe is in question. There are those who believe life on earth is special and is the only life in all the rest of creation. If this were so, it would seem that the universe in all its vastness is incredibly unfruitful.

[@jordan_8329]

The solar system had to be just as it is for life on earth to be possible. The earth revolves around the sun at just the right range of distance. The gas giant planets are far out enough to capture or disrupt the path of a large majority of asteroids that could wipe out life. If our solar system was too close to the center of the milky way galaxy then the giant black hole would probably distort space/time to not allow for an intelligibke sense of continuity and causs/effect. Its possible to believe the entire universe has meaning (whether practical or as artistic grandeur) even if we are the only intelligent beings capavle of forming civilizations.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

He finds Materialism's "brute fact" to be "unsatisfactory" but he's perfectly ok with God as a "brute fact". Ok then.

If we pretend real hard then we get to live forever.

[@bayreuth79]

That's because the universe is contingent, whereas whatever caused being rather than nothing has to be logically necessary.

[@bayreuth79]

Fatuous comment. Do you know what matter is? Do you know what consciousness is? Can you explain it in terms of brain function? Do you know anything about Dr Pim Van Lommel's longitudinal study of NDEs?

[@bayreuth79]

@@noelwass4738 That would include the multiverse hypothesis.

@@bayreuth79 thanks for the word salad

[@keithwalmsley1830]

"God has being in himself, his own cause", well that's the mystery of who made God solved and explained!!! Even Christian missionaries started to doubt their religion when they came across so-called primitive peoples who basically said, "OK, so who made God?".

[@rwarren58]

@@keithwalmsley1830 oh ye of little faith. We can’t even say who made us. A group of Amino acids got together? It was a trillion to 1 chance? We can’t even ask the wrong question as to our creation beyond faith.

@@rwarren58 Amino acids get together all the time there is nothing remarkable about that, and it certainly doesn't require some human's "faith".

[@dan7845]

It sounded like he claimed that the only option metaphysically that is not theism would be materialism, and if that is indeed what he claimed then he is very wrong.

[@konstantinos777]

- Why is there something rather than nothing? - God knows - Good answer! I never thought of it this way! Well, there you go

[@branimirsalevic5092]

If there was nothing rather than something, what would your question be?

[@konstantinos777]

Am I dead?

[@branimirsalevic5092]

@@konstantinos777 "I" mean nothing to you?

[@konstantinos777]

@@branimirsalevic5092 Yes and also Everything

[@antbrown9066]

When you sit down at a card table for a game, you are dealt a hand of cards. You look at your cards. You could ask why do I have these cards in my hand. This wouldn’t help the game. You play your cards from what is in your hand.

[@ibperson7765]

You can ask “Why universe?” You cannot ask “Why God?” Because ‘why’ presupposes a cause.

[@MooseMeus]

this is the question i ask myself every time i look up at the night sky. why is there anything? there had to be a beginning, but even a beginning wouldn't answer the question. god doesn't answer the question because then the question becomes how did god come to be? why is there a universe? why is there anything at all? everything had to start from something, but how does something start from nothing? i can't seem to wrap my head around how you get from there being nothing to there being something.... ok there was a ball of energy.. where'd that initial energy come from?

[@hckytwn3192]

Absolute nothing means no laws, no logic, no restrictions. Why wouldn’t the universe come from that? What would stop it? Nothingness yields infinite possibility.

[@francesco5581]

nothingness yields no possibility at all. Nothingness is nothingness, nothing comes from it

[@hckytwn3192]

@ Why? What would prevent something coming from nothing?

[@100percentSNAFU]

​@@hckytwn3192nothing would prevent the change, but at the same time nothing could cause the change. Any change of state would require a catalyst that would be something. For something to spontaneously appear in a complete nothingness void would defy every understood law of physics.

[@francesco5581]

@@hckytwn3192 the lack of an agent, of a causation

[@hckytwn3192]

@@francesco5581 if there’s a requirement of either, then you no longer have “nothing”. Pure nothingness has no such restrictions.

[@odysseus8944]

If it was the other way around, it wouldn't be possible to ask: Why there isn't nothing rather than something?, so I would say that something has no alternatives and it's mandatory

[@100percentSNAFU]

The fact that something exists means something must exist. That's one argument, but I tend to think it's a good one.

@@100percentSNAFU what do you mean by "must"?

[@konstantinos777]

A Something is impossible to exist alone. it necessarily requires Everything. The antithesis is between Nothing and Everything. But, Nothing is equivalent to Everything. In the sense that: Everything is as Nothing as Nothing is, because Everything is not Something. Nothing and Everything,, two sides of the same coin. So, the ultimate question, which brings the self (or God if you like) into the discussion, is "why exist at all?" Because you want? I mean if you don't want, the way out is easy

[@walterwhite7554]

Why does "Closer to Truth" mainly focus on trying to spread faith and belief instead? Just to let you know, the world's greatest thinkers can't magically think their GODs into existence by using just abstract human thought. What they require is the actual testable evidence of the God ITSELF, not that bad logic of things that are not the God ITSELF, like order or morals, or a first cause etc. Pointing to order or pineapples does not make Allah or Thor real.

[@kitstamat9356]

The actual testable evidence of God itself is the best possible evidence of God's beingness, but it is not expressible in common language. Philosophers were trying to say only what can be communicated to common reason.

[@nikitakucherov5028]

From a pure logical perspective nothing is NOT POSSIBLE as if there was truly nothing the question itself would not exist

[@kenmapp4891]

The other problem is that an explanation about why there is something and not nothing is unlike every other explanation you know. Every other explanation you know describes how some “thing” changed into some other “thing”, they are not about creation they are about change. The question of creation is outside the structure of thought. If we ever can come up with an answer, we will have to have a different kind of thought.

[@nsp74]

brilliant genius excellent answer

[@kitstamat9356]

The most interesting dimension of this question is contained in its second word - what is the meaning if this little word IS? What does it mean TO BE?

[@pradeenkrishnag2368]

Wrong question. You're only asking it because something exists. If there were truly nothing, why would anything have any more validity? Also, the word 'nothing' itself implies something.

[@100percentSNAFU]

If nothing existed then nobody would be there to ask the question. Nothing couldn't be questioned nor changed.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

But it’s not the case that nothing exists. Instead, something exists. So why is it the case that something exists rather than nothing exists?

@@anonymoushuman3657 because it does. "why" is irrelevant. why not?

[@anonymoushuman3657]

Because we observe things that don’t have to exist, and it seems on the surface that all things are like this. So we ask why does anything exist in search of deeper insight that may reveal not everything is something that doesn’t have to exist.

[@AlexanderSageman]

I always thought you can't have absolutely nothing

[@rwarren58]

Of course you can. However it can’t be observed either within or outside that universe.

[@Teddy143Fresa]

Having, not having implies sonething.

[@kevinvallejo7047]

@@AlexanderSageman my employer disagrees

[@100percentSNAFU]

There can't have ever been nothing because in order for nothing to become something it would require a change of state from some sort of catalyst, which in itself is something.

[@rwarren58]

@@Teddy143Fresa Doesn’t not having imply the lack of something.

[@jordan_8329]

People get hung up on this question. I like to frame it as this formula... the world we observe has some form of existence. Did it come about from an eternal chain of events or was there ever one single event that jump started the universe? Both of these possibilities (if taken seriously) require faith very similar to religion. Not taking the question seriously does not free us from the metaphysical implications.

[@100percentSNAFU]

Even if you were to take the multiverse approach, you still run into the question of what is the origin of the multiverse.

An imaginary human construct did not create the universe. This isn't hard.

[@jordan_8329]

So what did? Even if you say there has always been a universe or an infinite regression of multiverses, this carries along with it a sense of infinity that is similar to thinking of the infinite nature of God

@@jordan_8329 No it isn't "similar" to "god". God is just made up BS. I mean it's literally right there in the historical record. We can see ancient humans creating and modifying gods over time. Probably the universe was never "created" whatever that means. But even if it was, that certainly was not done by a sky daddy invented by semi-intelligent apes on one tiny planet.

@@jordan_8329 "god" is a primitive human invention that has no explanatory power whatsoever. It's just a placeholder for stuff we don't know.

[@woofie8647]

The theory that the universe came into being from nothing, is no different from the idea that God came into being from nothing. If a thing as complex as our universe can simply be, then why not God? Multiple universes also kicks the question up a level: where did the multiverse come from? Eastern philosophy would say that the ideas of being and non-being are no more than abstract concepts created by our mind/brain, and the only true reality is what is right here in front of us...our experience of each moment. It would also say that the concept of "being" automatically creates it's opposite, the concept of "non-being", so you cannot have one without the other even though both may only exist in our minds and have no reality of their own. I suspect we don't yet have the ability to understand the origin of the world and may never find the answers we seek. Everything we know is conceptual, including the idea that we are "things" living in a universe that has meaning and purpose, and one that we can eventually understand. "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine." -Multiple attributions.

[@100percentSNAFU]

I just believe nothing is a straight up impossibility. Why not God is a valid question. It has to be something. Even if it's not the God of any human religion, it's something powerful and would be godlike in every aspect of the word.

because "god" is just a word and some concepts that humans made up. No "god" has been located anywhere, and if it existed, its existence would be obvious.

[@woofie8647]

It’s possible.

[@supremegalacticcommander2783]

Reading Stephen Meyer's "Return of the God Hypothesis". If you dismiss considering there may be something like "God", you're being intellectually lazy. The arguments for intelligent design can't be dismissed out of hand. You would have to have more faith to believe in nothing or a "multiverse" than God. I agree, it's impossible to understand how God came to be, but if you look at the so called fine tuning or how long it would take for a functional protein to form or to "randomly mutate" into a different or higher functioning protein, it's staggering.

[@lewis72]

Just arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

[@Soli_Deo_Gloria_.]

Why something rather than nothing ? Because of an uncaused, non contingent, first cause of all contingency... God

[@anonymoushuman3657]

Can you explain please?

[@haudace]

Why God and not Vishnu?

why god and not cheese?

[@anonymoushuman3657]

Cheese is: caused and contingent (non-existence is possible). God as traditionally conceived is compatible with being uncaused and the necessary source of contingent things.

[@haudace]

@@anonymoushuman3657 that's a lot of assumptions about "God". Your second sentence.

[@antbrown9066]

This clip returned in my post….. why is there?……. The point is , there is. Deal with what is.. looking for meaning and purpose? Deal with what is. Not whether it could have been. It is - deal with it…..

[@MasoudJohnAzizi]

The difference between something and nothing is judgement.

[@kenmapp4891]

And finally part 2. Why even ask the question of why something and not nothing? 1. Three answers: Its interesting (to me) that we start with the question and end up talking about God (well not all of us, but more than a few). Maybe that’s the point. 2. If the question has no answer that doesn’t mean it’s useless. If it has no answer, it still tells you something about yourself and your place in the universe. It tells you that there are limits to the power of your though, it tells you that the universe doesn’t necessarily operate according to your rules of thought (btw I do believe in science, just know that it has limits). 3. So, there is something and not nothing and you can’t figure out why, what do you do with that fact? Well, I think gratitude is in order, because it didn’t have to be this way, you didn’t have to be here but you are. There is something and I’m exceedingly grateful to be part of it.

[@Chris-te3ce]

I think absolute nothing is impossible. I think there was always something and always will be thats still weird but well…

[@100percentSNAFU]

It's weird because it's hard for the human mind to grasp something tangible that is without beginning or end. However it becomes less weird when you take into account the laws of cause and effect and the simple fact that it defies the laws of physics for something to spontaneously appear out of nothing. Not to mention the laws of physics themselves. Why would such hard rules exist in complete random chaos? I don't think they could.

[@c_b5060]

It is not possible for there to be nothing because there would be no one around to perceive the nothingness. The concept of nothingness would not exist. Therefore, there can be only something. And we, being something, can ask questions and postulate about nothingness as an thought experiment.

[@jmanj3917]

2:16 We can't see the wind, either, Doc; Yet, its existence is not in doubt due to our ability to witness its effects, right?🤓🐕🐕 Go Bluejays!

[@surendrakverma555]

Good discussion 😃

[@j8000]

4:15 this is a very silly argument. "the laws of physics seem to have character" pointing to god assumes the laws of physics could have been otherwise. He makes no argument, compelling or otherwise, to suggest that's the case. He's riding on the brute fact of naturalism to arrive at god.

[@simonhibbs887]

He's just constantly dodging the question, every single objection Polkinghorn makes to the physical being a brute fact also applies to any account of god. He just imposes a mental block preventing him from applying the same critical arguments to the god proposition. As an explanation it just doesn't explain anything, it just jams an extra entity into the picture that's defined in terms of not having the metaphysical problems we're trying to reason about because he says so. You don't get to just define problems as being solved. Anybody can do that. At leats physicalists are honest about the fact that we don't know the underlying nature of the physical. I'd rather keep an open mind.

[@ruifilgo]

Exactly! Tank you! Religious people have this absolute arrogance saying, "Stop asking things about the origin of my god, cause all logic is not applicable to it". That's the greatest absurde statement ever. It's ridiculous. On why there is something instead of nothing, evolution theory is the answer. I'm not talking in biological terms. By definition, it is impossible to have something from nothing. So there always had to be someting. And with time, every fluctuations mean that there always going to be a evolution to a new equilibrium state. Until another fluctuation, provoke another evolution. You cannot be taking seriously if you never scientifically predicted nothing. You are just a mumbo jumbo story teller without no credibility, that your ignorant public wanting a neat satisfying anthropomorphic story. Religious people satisfy themselves with any nonsense they've presented. Anything at all.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*" He just imposes a mental block preventing him from applying the same critical arguments to the god proposition."* ... He believes this God exists; and you don't. Some people also believe in the Multiverse without any evidence. Everyone has their reasons. *"As an explanation it just doesn't explain anything, it just jams an extra entity into the picture that's defined in terms of not having the metaphysical problems we're trying to reason about because he says so."* ... We are "creators" that are separate from the things we create. Polkinghorne merely carried that naturally observable example of creation all the way up the existential ladder until he reached an unbreakable level of creation called "God." It's really no different than physicists who observe a particle simultaneously occupying different states, and then moves that all the way up the existential ladder by positing that a universe exists for every possible state of the particle (Multiverse). However, both positions can be easily reined in by applying a little logic. *"You don't get to just define problems as being solved. Anybody can do that."* ... Agreed, and we also don't get to declare certain questions as irrelevant just because they are more difficult to answer (I.e. "Why" questions). *"At leats physicalists are honest about the fact that we don't know the underlying nature of the physical. I'd rather keep an open mind."* ... As Sabine often points out, many modern-day physicists are going "all in" on completely nonscientific propositions, theories and hypotheses (i.e. Multiverse, String Theory). Apparently, physicists aren't impervious to the allure of "faith and religion."

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Again... where is your model, explication, and exposition. You don't have any right to opinion, concerning such topics of science, if you don't reveal how you think 'all this works'; where is your hypothesis.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >Everyone has their reasons. That's fine, but when someone gives those reasons and they're not consistently applied that's a problem for the consistency of their argument. His argument is inconsistent. >Polkinghorne merely carried that naturally observable example of creation all the way up the existential ladder until he reached an unbreakable level of creation called "God." The problem is he gives no reason to assume we need any further rungs up the ladder, or any reason to a sign them special properties. Kuhn pointed this our right at the very beginning, Polkinghorn accepted the argument as valid, then completely ignored that point and defined himself a right to do it anyway. It's literally saying I'm just going to define an explanation that doesn't have any of those logical problems because I'm defining it not to. I don't mean literally in the vernacular sense as in figuratively, I mean this is literally the actual move he makes. It's vacuous. >... Agreed, and we also don't get to declare certain questions as irrelevant just because they are more difficult to answer (I.e. "Why" questions). Sure. >... As Sabine often points out, many modern-day physicists are going "all in" on completely nonscientific propositions, theories and hypotheses All-in has a different meaning there. These are just opinions, and sometimes not even that, just suggestions. Every single one of the scientists suggesting those ideas would drop them like a lead balloon given any verifiable evidence against them. It's a completely different sort of commitment to religious belief, which has unfalsifiability as a foundational assumption.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@S3RAVA3LM I replied it last time you asked. I suppose it's possible KZbin ate my comment though so I'll repeat it. I’m an empiricist, so I think that what we know comes from experience, and reasoning about those experiences. Reasoning about experience has a long and rich history, with Aristotle as a foundational figure and we still structure our inquiry according to the schema of philosophy he laid out. We’re not just passive observers though, we are able to take action in the world and this enables us to test many of the conclusions we come to. This ability to interact with the world to gain insight into it, while again having a long history, was systematised by Galileo into the modern empirical scientific method of forming predictive theories, preferably expressed in mathematics, and testing those predictions experimentally. This enables us to engage in effective action. As well as not being passive observers, we are not neutral ones, we have intrinsic characteristics and we have impulsive responses to our experiences. We can reason about these responses and our successes and failures investigating experience, using the approaches to knowledge I outlined, in order to learn more about our own nature as well as that of the world of our experiences I don't know how deep or broad you want to go into this.

[@Hank254]

If it is possible for something to be its own cause, then why do we even need a god? The universe was its own cause.

[@kakhaval]

Why we got one head?, why we got two hands? five fingers, lungs, kidneys, one stomach? two legs, one belly, blood, nose........???

[@100percentSNAFU]

Because it works? I always use this argument against the notion you could have aliens that are blobs or some other unrecognizable form. If they exist, they may not resemble us superficially, but the the structure of being bipedal with appendages that can manipulate tools, two or more eyes to perceive depth, and a circulatory system to deliver nutrients to the whole body appear to not only be functional, but necessary.

[@SuatUstel]

Wish we had two hearts!!!!.

[@stephenzhao5809]

1:18 ... in other words God is his own cause we need a cause to hold us in being I believe actually that if God withdrew the divine world to whole the worldbeing the world would disappear 1:28

[@Atheist-o3n911]

Because time always tries to move forward, so there must be something, at least space, which is everything.

[@evaadam3635]

It is not time that moves matter but, rather, it is matter and its changes that gives the illusion of time...

[@Atheist-o3n911]

@evaadam3635 Time always moves forward ,causing changes in matter, giving the illusion of time passing.Matter and its changes are influenced by the progression of time, creating a continuous cycle of cause and effect. Time is a fundamental aspect of the universe that governs the sequence of events and the evolution of matter.

[@evaadam3635]

​@@Atheist-o3n911..then please, can you bring us bottles of yesterdays and baskets of tomorrows to prove time exists ?... it must be the best and most powerful energy drink because it can move everything in the Universe... ...if you can not, then please apologize to the reading public for blathering without a clue....

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

free will causation of material nature in space; and free will backward causation of consciousness / awareness in time?

[@haydenwalton2766]

one cannot ask oneself why one doesn't exist

[@AndrewAnderson-vb4pp]

This the real question worth answering, not is there a god , that is not an answer to anything but how does it exist

[@MrSanford65]

Multi universes are simply multi dimensions of relationships that transcend space and time because man cannot conceive the totality of everything at once -so we know they ( multi universes) exist probably in the form of our sublime relationships to many other things . Also, creation and purpose are very closely aligned , so whether an atheist or believer -to believe the universe had a beginning is practically believing it had a designer because things have to exist in relations to a parameter that serves what’s inside of it

[@100percentSNAFU]

Agreed. Something had to start if all. And that something must just exist as a brute fact. There must be an uncaused cause somewhere down the line.

[@MrSanford65]

@ it was something eternal that had the luxury of creating a parameter within that eternity because if that parameter in and of itself was fixed and mobile then all a reality would have devoured itself within that ultimate fixed parameter. Something that always been had to create that which is temporary and changing.

@@100percentSNAFU There CAN NOT be an "uncaused cause" by definition. Where would it come from?

[@simsixzero]

Logically, there cannot be an answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?". If that such answer exists, then you should ask "why is there such answer rather than nothing? ... Infinite Regress

[@Nesmaniac]

To me I think of it like this, either there were some eternal rock, or an eternal God. If there were a eternal rock then that rock would be all there ever is. With an eternal God, then endless possibilities which is precisely what we see.

god is just something humans made up

[@shahidsehrai]

To wonder on the mystery of existence is mother of all thought that makes us humans. Animals are different from us only in this one aspect of life.

[@chayanbosu3293]

The supremepersonality of Godhead is Sri Krishna

is that the elephant dude?

[@chayanbosu3293]

He is father of Jesus

[@kenmapp4891]

I'm posting 3 comments, you have to read backwards to get the order of it. Finally, I think that the entire idea of “nothing” may be an illusion, a semantic confusion. “Nothing” combines “not”, which is simple negation with “thing” which is the generic term for any object you can experience or conceive of. In common use, it does not really mean “not anything at all”, it means more like “not anything I care about or notice or can perceive” but that is a far cry from the true nothing. The word nothing is the semantic combination of “not” and “thing” but the thing it refers to, the true nothing, is almost unconceivable, it may not really exist. Sabine H did a good video about the 9 layers of nothing.

[@arcanuslosanara2823]

Why is there nothing rather than something?

[@SuatUstel]

Because something preceed nothing....

[@zeroonetime]

Even God cannot separate the intangible 0 from the tangible 1. And Binary computation cannot Be a one without the 0-no-thing. The 010 I.S. Creation, Evolution and Entropy --- Information System -- Yesh meAin ...

[@votingcitizen]

"if god withdrew the divine, the world would disappear", mkay. Disappear to where, then? The supernatural concept of a intentional "god" who "wants" to do things like create universes is where religious thought surrenders the argument.

[@100percentSNAFU]

To say the universe and everything in existence appeared out of nothing presents just as many problems as the god argument, perhaps more problems. Whether or not it's a "God" or some sort of deity, it seems there should be some sort of an "uncaused cause".

@@100percentSNAFU nope existence is infinite. There was never nothing.

[@shelwincornelia2498]

It's illogical to think that something can ever emerge from absolutely nothing. So to answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing', the right answer can only be, that there has never really been nothing. Nothing tangible/physical can not be considered as being absolutely nothing. For there to be something there has to be the necessary energy responsible for its manifestation yet this energy could've also been of a spiritual nature quite like our own collective consciousness which inspires through its natural will to live as a manifested being, a mind capable of manifesting this universe to comply with this natural will.

[@anaromana8183]

Depends on what nothing your are talking about?

[@shelwincornelia2498]

@@anaromana8183 Nothing outside does not exclude something inside.

[@anaromana8183]

No. Is about nothing of religion or nothing of science! Different topic

[@shelwincornelia2498]

@@anaromana8183 there is no scientific nothing when referring to the question 'why there's something rather than nothing'. Some scientists like to associate everyone who does not agree with their limited vision of reality, with being religiously motivated.

[@anaromana8183]

No you dont get it. When you take muslim religion (or crestian) for them nothing is what is before this universe. For science that nothing doesent exist.

[@Folkstone1957]

“God has being in himself” & there you have the epitome of nonsense.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@@Folkstone1957 ?

[@kenmapp4891]

Yea, I'm in the we aren't smart enough camp. Remember that your thoughts, including all your explanations about why there is something and not nothing, are material facts, like a real material chess board with 100,000,000,000 pieces all interacting at once. Large as that is it is still finite, and the universe you live in is, if not infinite, is still vastly bigger than you, in size, duration, and complexity. Demanding that we be able to explain everything about the universe, including why it is here, is like demanding that the chess board be able to make a model of ever possible fact about the universe it is imbedded in.

[@peterroberts4509]

Why do you think something and nothing are mutually exclusive?

because nothing is definitionally the absence of something

[@peterroberts4509]

That would be difficult to prove. Nothing is still something in the material world.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@@peterroberts4509 When someone says he had nothing to eat, what is he saying?

[@peterroberts4509]

@anonymoushuman3657 nothing to eat in the last five minutes if he is an American

[@peterroberts4509]

@anonymoushuman3657 if he's from the USA he's saying he's had nothing to eat in the last ten minutes

[@williamvanleuven414]

According to Polkinghorne "because God has its own cause". OK, next question then: where does God come from ? Who or what created this God ? And saying that the existance of a God is a brute fact is too easy. This is not helping us in any way.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@@williamvanleuven414 If God has always existed, then he never came into existence. God wasn’t created.

[@c_n_b]

The fact you are asking the question means there can't be nothing.

[@AnonAnon1]

A related question is why can’t nothing be found

[@robinblankenship9234]

Can life exist that does not require the use of DNA or some similar chemical as an organizing agent? DNA seems to require the agency of perpetual competition to develop complex, evolving organisms. At the level of human beings, this competition seems to lead to war being a decisive determative factor. Given human capacity for ever more powerful means of destruction, does this not make evolution a self-limiting process in our case?

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

only in our case I suspect...it's the price of freedom or as some say, being made in the image of God

[@Austinite333]

There has to be something because if not there is nothing which would be very boring to say the least.

[@aiya5777]

getting bored = there's something that makes you bored It's still something

[@hugofernandes8545]

The laws of nature are contingent, they didn't have to exist. Actually the whole Cosmos is contingent, it didn't have to exist. Everything within the Universe had a beginning. The whole Cosmos is created. So it is obvious that it must have exist an self-existent and self-explanatory creator and sustainer of all things. Religion calls "God" to that entity. That's pure logic. If there is a multiverse it is also contingent. Who created that multiverse? Why there is a multiverse rather than nothing? Its the same question.

[@tadmorrison]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy! There is something that is beyond the realm of science, or human understanding itself. Let’s speak authoritatively about a specific iron age God, as if we have any evidence at all that such a being exists.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

free will causation why something rather than nothing?

[@kakhaval]

I see closer to truth running out of videos so repeat in chunks from previous ones. It is losing value really.

never had value

[@dimitrisblackflorist]

A species of life on an insignificant planet formulates philosophical schemes for the entire universe. Very sweet but also completely indifferent.

[@100percentSNAFU]

Yes, but regardless of our significance in the grand scheme of the universe, the question is still valid and our mere existence proves a universe capable of producing something able to question the origin of the universe itself.

[@dimitrisblackflorist]

@@100percentSNAFU Our existence is related to the way we can perceive the world around us. With our mind and senses. But this way has nothing to do with physical reality. We see colors, but nature does not produce colors. We hear sounds, but nature does not produce sounds. We live in a four-dimensional universe emerging from a quantum mechanical, multidimensional chaotic field. And scientific research has discovered that quantum systems do not have the regularity we see. Quantum systems can create the fields we come from. And these are based on the principles of quantum physics and the principles of chaos. They are inherently unpredictable, random. Our own universe is simply an island of normality in the immensity of chaos.

[@Me-lj1rk]

What an absurd answer in the beginning..."...self cause"...OMg

[@ramnatarajan2158]

Show me "nothing" as an example. You can only show me a concept of nothing in your mind (like the number zero) - it does not exist is reality. For concepts to exist in reality, it has to have a real-correlate. Just stating "nothing" is even possible or that it exists needs its correlate in reality.

[@anonymoushuman3657]

@@ramnatarajan2158 An example of “nothing”: You’re starving because you had “nothing” to eat.

[@prettysure3085]

The question is when am I gonna be a billionaire?

[@kakhaval]

Just imagine you are... You can cheat the brain and it works I am sure.

[@benjaminrobinson6507]

why couldn't you simply say then that the universe is its own cause .. The only place god could be left is in everything at that point. There would be nothing that isn't god.

[@mrtienphysics666]

Because God created it.

[@jameskelso5311]

It’s kind of sad that John Polkinghorne is just re-iterating that which would be the childhood and adolescent church-based reasoning of his time. It’s also a pity that he can’t find reasoning that recognises contemporary cosmology. Cosmology is an evidence-based science, with reasonable speculations based on that evidence. Cosmology has moved on a lot from when it seems he formed his beliefs. As such, his interview is disappointing, and proves nothing. A sort of ‘grave-yard’ of the beliefs of an English village church. Delightful - but wrong.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

A much simpler answer that doesn't require a god is based on *logical conceivability.* In order for *Existence* to be conceivable, it needs to be juxtaposed it with *Nonexistence* as one offers conceivability for the other. Either state would be completely inconceivable without the presence of the other, and as we all know, ... *_inconceivable things do not / cannot exist!_*

[@S3RAVA3LM]

The term God is an appellation; a title. It is a title in recognition of the Primordial Cause, i.e.. the unbegotten cause, the Cause of all causes. When are you going to stop the little game you keep advocating. You and your book are not prestigious.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@S3RAVA3LM *"The term God is an appellation; a title. It is a title in recognition of the Primordial Cause, i.e.. the unbegotten cause, the Cause of all causes."* ... Everything we observe has a name. Multiverse is also a name / title. Names are how we communicate ideas. Nobody discusses "nameless propositions." *"When are you going to stop the little game you keep advocating."* ... Presuppositional question. *"You and your book are not prestigious."* ... That's perfect because maps, dictionaries and installation guides aren't prestigious either. Like my book, they all focus on communicating *information* and not achieving fame, glory, or prestige.

[@Henri-y8t]

Hi I want to point few thing before we go big to a understanding of your origine, and a understanding of your cosmos and also an understanding of your multivers. First we have to have a way better grasp of what is Time how Much different sort of Time and when to combine them or witch sort of time you have to chose and why. So, Time : we know lineair Time, we have the (NOW) this now time is the one you born in and also the NOW time is the one that all your experience mix with all your conscience and inconscient and even your death will happen. This (NOW) Time is fondamentale for each of you so each of you as a different (NOW) , so 100 human being = 100 (NOW). Each planete, each galaxy, each nebula, each everything as is proper (NOW) so, as the fact Let's say, a lots of Sun into a galaxy ok, so each Sun into a galaxy as is OWN (NOW), as each neutrons stars as is proper (NOW) listen as each galaxy as is proper is unique (NOW) hope is OK till now, LOL joke till NOW , any way you fallow Me, if you zoom in a galaxy to pic a detail let say your solar systeme, so this solar systeme as is OWN (NOW), as you zoom in your solar systeme are any otter and you pic Earth and is moon, so, Earth and is moon as there OWN (NOW) OK. But you can not pic one planet let say plus a moon that dont Belong to is proper ensemble. The same with any otters ensemble that you will discover eventualy, so the cosmos as is OWN (NOW) and you zoom into some detail and you pic nebula, so nebula as is OWN (NOW) but if you zoom in and you pic an singel atom of ionise or neutral or moléculaire hydrogen this one as is proper (NOW) a quarks as is OWN proper (NOW) as long is always part of the same proper ensemble. Look you always juste use the cosmos as long the stuff you talk about is part of the proper cosmos OK, no worry I Do it Quick, we can go way deeper than that. Listen BLACK HOLE do not go like that because is form from to many proper (now) that is all mix Up some part of this are not there but otters part of that is mix with those half there but not same ensemble, something like this, right Will come back to Black Hole in time. We have the C Time what suppose to be faster speed ever wish is not at all I can tell you expansion some time go way over 48^C, Ho yes trust Me. The probleme with speed of light is when you Reach it the mass is more heavier and the Time stop. And the Time of cosmos, it is elastic not at all now listen take a cube and 10 by 10 km, ok now separate this cube inside by 1 square cm. Ok, the cosmos is the big cube and you zoom in at 1square cm this tiny part of the cosmos represent a scale and this tiny part of is proper time Is(NOW) are the cosmos proper (NOW) so it work with time (NOW) too. Hope it make some sense probably not but nex Time I bring Electron to it and so and so My goal is many goal but the proper one is Let's get out from Earth before you should know Philippe 😎 ID love and care about each of you

[@plinden]

As a philosopher why have a position here? Is it not more certain that there is no clear answer here compelled by reason.

infinite existence is compelled by reason

[@plinden]

If you say so.

[@markstipulkoski1389]

What is God made of? We beings of matter have discovered that intelligence arises out of complex structures we call neural netwoks. Scientifically proven. So what structure does God have that makes Him intelligent and what is it made of? I know, it's a mystery. No thanks.

[@RuneRelic]

You can have a god of RNG via infinite time & ignore the ever more elaborate sequence of events, with an ever more controlled environment, with which to reproduce that 'RNG'. You can have a god of creation, that wrote the laws/rules that the scientists demand exist and spend their whole lives hunting to recover. Pick one ;)

[@michelangelope830]

Please listen to me because I need help. If the Bible is false doesn’t make atheism true. If religion is false doesn’t make atheism true. Arguments against religion are not arguments against God. You are deceived because many people lied to you much. Who created god?, under which circumstances would the question "who created what is not created?" make sense?. If you understand the atheist logical fallacy you are more intelligent than most. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. God exists and the intelligent creator of the universe is not what atheists call "sky daddy". Atheism is an impossibility, atheism can not explain reality. Attention!, atheists only talk about Spinoza to lie about Spinoza, I am explaining a deception. Is it possible to be wrong?, is it possible to believe it is impossible to be wrong believing?. Atheists reason along the lines of "sky daddy doesn't make any sense and religion is man made fairytales, so leave me alone because I know god doesn’t exist so all the arguments for the existence of god are wrong", am I right or wrong?. To escape out of the circle you have to read Spinoza and you will understand atheists lie to protect religion. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I am talking about knowledge that should not be censored. Who benefits censoring knowledge? Emergency!, people are dying in absurd wars. I hope for God's sake to be understood. Thank you.

[@tomjackson7755]

The help that you need cannot be found here. Your mistakes have been corrected repeatedly and yet you are still making the same ones.

[@goodquestion7915]

"Why?" is a question that most easily shows the questioner's toddler level epistemology. When a young and inexperienced mammalian nervous system faces the world, everything seems to have intentionality and teleology.

[@geojohnwyo]

"God did it."

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Nothing did it?

[@100percentSNAFU]

Well that's really the only options, God did it or nothing did it, or possibly a third option of there was nothing to "do" because something (whatever that may be) to some extent has always existed and always will.

[@Paine137]

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Nothing isn’t nothing.

[@MartinSaintXXL]

But which god? And why?

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

@@Paine137 Nothing isnt something

[@TongaCortez]

What an absolutely nonsensical answer. He should simply admit that he has no idea why there's something rather than nothing. I'm disappointed with Rob for continuing to talk to theologians. They have nothing of importance to say about the mystery of life. No human being knows the answer to the question and their thoughts on the subject are always very tiresome. Rob, you stopped getting closer to truth decades ago. Now, you're just slumming.

[@chrislocke8914]

Hi Guys, this question, why does anything exist ?, actually proves Gods existence. Proof below. Simple logic, things exists, everything can’t be contingent on something else existing. Otherwise, it’s chicken and egg which came first, an infinite regression, infinitely avoiding giving an answer. Therefore, something must exist, that is eternal, uncreated and therefore exists necessarily, not contingent on anything else. The Bible captures this logic by naming God as the “I am”. So we are left with two alternatives for the uncreated entity, Option 1 the traditional “biblical” God, or Option 2 the laws of nature - but with the added superpower of being uncreated. Google gives “The idea of laws of nature was introduced in the 17th and 18th centuries. The term was used in the context of the idea that God created laws to govern the motions of material bodies in the universe” Now, if you investigate option 2, “the super powered laws of nature”, they turn out to be God by another name. Proof below. God’s defining characteristics are omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience and uncreated. These characteristics are the same as we ascribe to the “laws of nature”. Omnipotent (nothing can disobey the laws of nature), omnipresent (the laws apply everywhere and for all time) omniscient (every that happens is solely because of the laws) Everyone believes in something with the characteristics of God. Before the 17th century, when we invented the term, “laws of nature” everyone’s name for God was God. The only difference between the two options, is if you ascribe a personality or mind to your version of God. Is God(the laws) just a force to be aligned to ?, or can we go deeper in our understanding of the mind of God, and full on communicate with our creator/evolver. If you believe the “super powered laws of our universe”, can evolve our human minds and our personality over a period of 13.8 billion years, then it’s fairly reasonable to believe, in an infinite period of time, the laws will have evolved their own mind and personality. The only choices, we are left with Is believing Option 1 -God created the universe and is external to it. Option 2 - the universe itself is the massive brain of God, and that we are walking around inside of it. Either way, quit atheism, it is provably wrong, and investigate the religions that exist on our planet. For more details, start praying (it kills stress and anxiety), you live healthier (no addictions), live an average of 7 years longer and merge back with God when you die.

[@richiogalvez9871]

"There is something, because first and foremost, you have a brain that conceives it to be. Nothing more, nothing less". Richio Galvez

[@mikel5582]

The reason there is something rather than nothing is that his royal holiness, the noodly source of everything, is a sadistic prankster.

[@seanmckenna6122]

You won't find the answer to this question. In god or god's 😊

[@magicmjk09]

That was one of, if not The, weakest, lousiest and most obviously circular arguments for the existence of god I've witnessed in Closer to Truth.