Robert Spitzer - The Mystery of Existence

If all that exists-everything imaginable, physical and nonphysical-is 'something'. Why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? Wouldn't 'nothing' be simpler than any sort of 'something'? It's a haunting wonderment. It's the biggest possible question. Why is there anything at all? There must be an answer. But who can know it?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on Existence: bit.ly/3pmjtN9
Robert J. Spitzer, SJ, is a Jesuit priest, philosopher, physicist, educator, author, speaker, and retired President of Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@wisedupearly3998]

Appreciate your own existence as it allows you to ponder unanswerable questions such as "Why is there anything at all" and then get on with life. Never dismiss that feeling of appreciation.

[@Ekam-Sat]

The word is love.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“Unanswerable” carries some major assumptions in it.

[@Stephenioa]

Love the struggle around the question of whether something is nothing or, to put it another way, whether nothing is something... pure joy

[@DJSbros]

It's meaningless argument over language.

[@Stephenioa]

@@DJSbros Well, meaningless sounds a little self defeating - language, however crude, is how we express our realities.

[@jreveley9462]

That's not what they are debating. Philosophically, 'nothing' (i.e. not anything) by definition is not a something. Thinking it is simply comes from imprecision in the English language. In fact, you can makes jokes about it. 'What did you have for lunch?' 'Nothing!' 'Great! What did it taste like'? Likewise, something is not nothing (when nothing is properly defined as metaphysical non-being). What that they are actually debating is whether metaphysical non-being is more simple than a limitless, unrestricted reality characterised by aseity and unicity (i.e. God).

[@samosa9488]

I keep coming back to this. This is something to be preserved and shown in museums

[@oddsends6048]

If something can happen, eventually it will. Out of all the possibilities we just happen to be the ones here and now that are, and can ask the question.

[@JesseRedmanBand]

If something can happen it will, requires some type of existence. Without existence, nothing can happen.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

"eventually it will" *presupposes* some background existence in which these "possibilities" are actualized. No problem. But *why* is there existence at all?

[@patmat.]

I'll have to listen to that one again and take notes, it sounded like the closest thing of an answer I've heard so far to Bob's ultimate question.

[@GabrielGarcia-jf2uc]

Agree, but if you think about it, if science proof that the Universe came from nothing thant bob will ask: "how"... the question is not where reality came from or if always existed, the question is how exists?

[@barbaradimascio4623]

This is the most delirious discussion I've ever heard!

[@patricialauriello3805]

What a brilliant, wonderful conversation! Best of the best.

[@sammmmmwilliams]

Not much of a conversation!

[@pcywjg]

@@sammmmmwilliams I disagree, this is a very insightful, 2 way conversation

[@ericpalmer3588]

Love the way this guy thinks!

[@spacesciencelab]

Honestly the fact of existence is extremely strange to me and everyday I contemplate about it. It's so strange and fascinating. It's amazing, almost miracle like. I mean, if you ponder more about it you begin to think what this present existence is all about. Only up until very recently we've became rather civil. For thousands of years we've been so violent and at war. Back when humans were hunter and gathers, eaten alive by wild animals, and back to our evolutionary ancestors it has been such an extremely difficult process to get where we are today. Even going back to when "we" were in the oceans. But even going back to even life didn't even exist or earth. The universe in general was and still in extremely "violent" with supernovae going off, planets being smashed into, etc. The fact that we come from exploding stuff is vastly strange to ponder about. It seems to me that, the more we progress with the likes of technology, the less suffering there is (minus war tech). It's as if we're heading to something spiritual, to exist in a state of pure bliss and no pain.

[@garychartrand7378]

@Chandala Baba-Mfume look at you - judging God. You are so wrong in your understanding. That's OK. One day ( or lifetime) you WILL become evolved enough to 'get it'. Even though you obviously don't get it now, God's Perfect System will usher you back to our Creator - but He will NEVER force you.

[@garychartrand7378]

We are not 'heading' towards something Spiritual. We Are spirits and very young in our journey through our evolution ( some more than others. We will only realize who we REALLY are when there is no more war, not one starving person on the planet, and the end of crime. For this spiritual maturity to be possible EVERYONE needs to wake up (become enlightened) and recognize that in this present reality we are asleep and living in illusion. 3 MAJOR illusions need to go in order to wake up. 1) that we are separate. The Truth is that we (and God) ARE ALL ONE. What hurts you hurts me. What helps you heals everyone. 2) that there's not enough. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH - easily understood if ALL resources were shared equitably. 3) that you MUST do 'something' in this life. The Truth is that you have already done more than enough just being born. As you can see, we have much growing and maturing to do before we can create Heaven on Earth 🌍🌎 if we don't destroy the planet first. Bless you.

[@k-3402]

@Chandala Baba-Mfume Antinatalism for life. I wish more religiously inclined folks would study Gnosticism. And atheists should stop imbibing secular platitudes. The highest act of compassion any of us can exercise is give the universe the middle finger and not procreate.

[@garychartrand7378]

@Chandala Baba-Mfume I am assuming that you consider yourself as pathetic and stupid also as yourself is also human.(?) It is obvious that you don't have a clue as to why the world is the way it is. It is impossible for God to do ANYTHING but perfection - and that includes YOU and EVERYONE else. Ignorance is a maturity problem but that does not mean that the ignorant are not perfect. ALL Spiritual Masters say the same thing "Everything is in a mess, but All is well". In God's Perfect System we are just babies still evolving (growing, maturing. Just because a baby doesn't know a thing or isn't capable of doing a thing doesn't mean that it is less than perfect. It is perfection itself. As a species we are still very young in our evolution (some more than others). Those who are less evolved consider themselves to be just human. The more evolved have come to know who they REALLY are - human BEINGS. The less evolved live in the illusion of who they 'think' they are (fear filled Egos) and the more evolved grow out of their illusions and KNOW who they REALLY are (fearless loving eternal souls). We ALL have Free Will and are able to choose between Love and Fear. Love will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS do the right thing. Fear, however, causes panic and distortion of the mind AND is the source of ALL heartache and misery on the planet. Fear and Love CANNOT co-exist. YOU choose. It is a good indicator of what level of maturity you are at in the evolutionary process. We (some of us) are presently at a point in our evolution where we can understand God's Perfect System and what it is all about ( what the Universe and us is all about). It is an ingenious and simple to understand System but it is quite involved because it deals with Life, Love, the Universe, God, and EVERYTHING. If you are not evolved enough (yet), you can still trust the Creator. We are in the 'hands' of the most loving entity in existence. Thanks to God's Perfect System, our outcome is assured. We are ALL heading to the same place (back to God). Evolution will eventually get us ALL to Christ Consciousness and then on to God Consciousness. Of this you have no choice - but He will NEVER force you. You can take as many lifetimes as is needed OR you can decide to make giant leaps, right now, in your evolution and consciousness. You are a very powerful free Spirit. Do as you choose. God's promise is that you can DO, BE, and HAVE whatever you wish. What else would you expect expect from the children of God - little gods? It is silly that the less evolved among us blame God for all the 'bad' stuff that happens. God Created us - and we created the rest. If we were ALL ( or at least most of us) were to come together as evolved loving beings and agree, WE HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE HEAVEN ON EARTH 🌎🌍. You decide - Love or Fear. You cannot change the mind or heart of others, but you can EASILY change your own mind and heart. IT'S JUST A CHOICE. Bless you.

[@spacesciencelab]

@Chandala Baba-Mfume Not all are pathetic and stupid. Yes, we have our times at those phases but then we mature. We're definitely not stupid in general, we've created such a vastly different means of living. We'd be stupid if we still existed amongst the animals, in an existence that is mostly just suffering and the chances of being ate alive would be high. We should be extremely grateful to exist in these times, it may only come once.

[@ronhudson3730]

The funniest aspect of these comments is the hubris of so many of the commentators, who aren't in any way in the same intellectual league as the host or the guest. Just watch and consider. The instant you put finger to keyboard you betray your ignorance.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

Bingo! Nearly everyone online either a) has no control over whether or not they type something they believe to be worth reading by others or b) has the idea in their minds that they are equally up to the challenges, the arguments, the wits, the logic, and the nuance of whomever is talking in the video. It’s a conundrum and one with which I have grown bored with over the past decade. I don’t want to be bored by it; I’d rather like to go back to the first half of that decade. But here we are, hehe!

[@devinbell4155]

You assume too much

[@onestepaway3232]

Nothing without preconditions to generate something is an impossibility. Something eternal needs to exist. Shalom

[@aqilshamil9633]

Salam Alaikum

[@k-3402]

Who's to say the universe hasn't eternally existed in one form or another?

[@spacesciencelab]

It's my view that nothingness is a human concept. If you look everywhere, nothing doesn't exist. This becomes more clear when I studied fractals and the Mandelbrot set. It seems that there is, as mind boggling it is, that no such thing as a beginning or ending exists. It is like Russian dolls. And I think Alan Watts puts this view rather strange but he does hit the nail "it's all turtles all the way down". It sounds silly but it's not about turtles, it's about infinity and conformal geometry.

[@LordTetsuoShima]

Max Planck would like a word with you

[@nietztsuki]

I agree, nothingness is a human concept. And all concepts are finite categories of understanding whereby we put reality into finite boxes that we can understand. Therefore to say that "nothing exists" is a contradiction in terms. Existence is a finite concept which presupposes "thingness," for lack of a better word; whereas nothing is the absence of things, i.e. nothing = no-thing. Some theologians would ascribe the same analysis to the deity, too. God, they would say, is nothing, i.e. not "a thing." Therefore to even ascribe existence to God would be incorrect. God does not exist because God is not a thing. Nor is God is a being, but rather the Ground of Being, or Being Itself.

[@spacesciencelab]

@@nietztsukiAgree. I would rephrase and say that nothing only exists in human imagination.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Ie, existence (or some aspect/ layer/feature thereof) cannot fail to obtain.

[@spacesciencelab]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns yup

[@danielekirylo]

Isn't nothing the absence of anything, meaning you have to remove everything before you get a nothing, in other words nothing is in direct relationship with everything, an equation if you wish. X = -Y, if one exists also the other one requires to exist. Yin and the Yang

[@jessebryant9233]

But you are presupposing some physical thing... and space, are you not?

[@cps_Zen_Run]

Daniele, Nothing, the absence of everything, is not found in our natural world. It might exist as a concept, like the number 3.

[@-JSLAK]

"Nothing" isn't even the absence of something existing, because the absence of something existing, is not nothing, its a concept, which is not nothing. If you can find a way to describe "nothing", then you're not really talking about "nothing". Even trying to think about "nothing" is almost impossible because everything we know in life, is something

[@danielekirylo]

@@jessebryant9233 space, or spacetime is something that exist and stretches, so it is a something and if I am not mistaken it also has some minimum energy. But I am not a physicist so don't quote me on that.

[@danielekirylo]

@@-JSLAK so if it cannot be described then it doesn't exist and this entire discussion makes no sense. Since I am human and I describe things and concepts, hence they exist because I just described them, I think nothing exists but it is in relationship with something, as an opposite of everything, including thought itself.

[@catherinehartmann1501]

This is good. Hypothetical beyond hypothetical - but makes so much sense - and R Spitzer articulates it so well, and so positively. Good Teacher!

[@HigherPlanes]

I didn't get his argument really...I felt he avoided giving a genuine answer.

[@carefulcarpenter]

Good? Only God is good. A lot of words. How about empirical evidence? We have critical minds, so why are there, is there, no critical evidence to compare concept with reality? Isn't it Satan that twists words and contexts?

[@HigherPlanes]

@@carefulcarpenter man’s mind is logical and adaptive to pattern recognition, and I think we wrongfully assume that reality should therefore follow suit. But why do we assume that reality should be rationally apprehend able to us? Man’s mind IS the problem, as many ancient philosophies have pointed out.

[@carefulcarpenter]

@@HigherPlanes Words are very seldom accurately shared in meaning. A life of experience is very helpful. Young academic minds think they know more than they do--- on very limited and biased information. Examples are abundant. Pattern recognition supported by empirical evidence very profoundly points towards intelligent design. Man will not examine evidence that does not support an agenda, it seems. _Truth is context-driven; deceit is agenda-driven. Those not interested in accurate empirical evidence of reality are not interested in the whole truth._ cc 👀🐡🌿🌾

[@HigherPlanes]

@@carefulcarpenter Quite nicely stated! Kudos! So what do you think, God or no God?

[@luistorrado1940]

beautiful conversation

[@alexthompson877]

Loving it

[@evanjameson5437]

excellent conversation. my view is simple: we exist because there is no other alternative.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

"we"... as in humans? We exist by necessity and couldn't fail to exist? Or did you mean something else?

[@prometheusrex1]

A "view" without a rationale is about as good as nothing at all. Your "view" exists but there are indeed alternatives: you could have said nothing here.

[@Paulus_Brent]

You rarely will find me saying anything positive about priests, but this guy definitely comes up with arguments that make sense.

[@GulfsideMinistries]

He's just giving the standard argument for Divine Simplicity. It's been around for over two thousand years. And he's right, by the way. It's the argument that must be made. :)

[@rockpadstudios]

I don't like priests either but one said "religion comes about because we don't have any say about being born and no control over our death". They get to spend their entire lives just dealing with words, they don't have any other job except to create words people want to hear. Sometime they do offer some interesting incites.

[@marktaylor2502]

Love Father Spitzer!

[@ryans3001]

Robert Spitzer is one of the few priests I respect. A brilliant guy who doesn't mince words and does not try to pass off religious woo as fact.

[@opencurtin]

Maybe you don't know a lot of priests .

[@horizons2358]

U mean he doesn't believe the jeebus is the son of God? Bet he does😑

[@johnbuckner2828]

Like trying to imagine a one dimensional point minus relationship. I just can’t take myself out of the equation.

[@ronholfly]

It's weird how we all think reality is something rather than nothing.

[@nivekvb]

I was just asking this very question in conversation this afternoon.

[@dnavas7719]

We can also ask the question in the opposite direction, If you start with "something" why is impossible to end up with "nothing"?

[@frednimzowi9852]

Exactly my thinking. Try making nothing of what we have. Good luck! 😉😆

[@brud1729]

Why questions are ultimately unanswerable. See Richard Feynman's comments on this subject. If the question is changed to "how," then we can have a conversation because we have a question that can be addressed by science. "Why," not so much.

[@frednimzowi9852]

While I agree that often we ask ourselves the wrong questions, I have to disagree with Feynmann here. For exemple I would personally not have understood the concept of "time" If I had not asked the question of why time is necessary in the universe. It seems to me the "how" question is secondary here, in fact we do not have a completely clear answer about the how.

[@rwjazz1299]

seems we're still struggling with the how right now. Hope we get to the why some day.

[@cheaterxl243]

These ideas of reality are so cool 😎

[@writereducator]

I enjoy Robert Kuhn who has made a career of asking questions and never accepting an answer.

[@TableTennisLover1234]

I think Robert Kuhn’s question is a moot point. The only reason he’s able to ask that question is because he exists in that moment to ask it.

[@chrisc1257]

Or he has experienced a dimension outside of time ...

[@spacesciencelab]

That is a bit nihilistic.

[@spacesciencelab]

It's my view that nothingness is a human concept. If you look everywhere, nothing doesn't exist. This becomes more clear when I studied fractals and the Mandelbrot set. It seems that there is, as mind boggling it is, that no such thing as a beginning or ending exists. It is like Russian dolls. And I think Alan Watts puts this view rather strange but he does hit the nail "it's all turtles all the way down". It sounds silly but it's not about turtles, it's about infinity and conformal geometry.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@spacesciencelab It turtles all the way down as unsatisfying as it sounds is correct

[@GabrielGarcia-jf2uc]

@@spacesciencelab what that explination do is change the question from 'why' to 'how' something exist.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Infinite and eternity are more undeniable and simple than than nothingness and with Infinite and eternity all things are possible, even the something we find ourselves existing in.

[@Bassotronics]

Can existence exist if there is no conscience being to verify the existence? Imagine.. matter floating around appearing out of nowhere.. it’s just there.. somewhere... in so-called “space”.. but matter itself does not “care” or “know” of it’s own existence. It’s existing and not existing at the same time. A paradox within a paradox.

[@frednimzowi9852]

I understand what you mean and I believe it's basically the same question as how life and in particular complex life appeals. The question I' m asking goes like this: is consciousness enough to prove there is something? My answer is no but I have no proof!

[@rwjazz1299]

who's to say countless intelligent beings haven't come into existence, and exited out, in far away galaxies. So over the course of eternity (intelligence) comes and goes. on/off. on/off in/out. Conscience is not a requirement for the existence of the material universe. Rather, it's just a by-product. Black holes, super nova's, red giants, CMB, or (whatever) 🤢 intelligence, are all just brute facts. They're special brute facts. For now. Our earth doesn't even scale up to a tiny spec of dust within our solar system compared to earth and the known universe. But here we are thinking we're the only smart guy on the block. That's the epitome or arrogance, and ignorance.

[@holderlinsson5637]

The real question is not Why Anything, but, rather, Why does this question even occur: If we are part and parcel of this cosmos, why would anything about it - let alone the whole of it - strike us as questionable, in the first place? It's as if we are not from here.

[@repearsonjr]

What a brilliant thinker he is

[@profskmehta]

Absolutely nothing means no observer. Then who would judge that “absolutely nothing” is simple. Secondly, complexity reflects lack of understanding. So nothing is inherently simple or inherently complex. In this existence we are supposed to move from complexity to simplicity…. from ignorance to complete knowledge. The beauty lies in this progression.

[@AbdulAzeez-hg2qf]

Hey let wonder about the distinction between equsite complex form of metaphysical perceptuallity. All intrisinically motioned by the radical dynamics. All above I agreed ur statement.

[@williamburts5495]

Matter and consciousness are just two sides of the same coin called reality.

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

Beautiful channel nonetheless ❤️🖤🖤🖤💓❤️💛🙏🙏🙏💪💓

[@adelinrapcore]

Thinking about the fact that there always was something, i mean even that nothing would "exist" somewhere, its absolutely the way for going mad.

[@KARIM_HAMZA]

*My response to the meaning of life is: what were we before we were born??* NOTHING !!

[@originalcontent210]

Well before we were born we were a fetus lol

[@KARIM_HAMZA]

@@originalcontent210 am talking before we were fetus and sperme.

[@ShowUsTruth]

The concept of absolute simplicity as something exciting is more complex than non-absolute simplicity, which is essentially nothing. Alternatively, non-absolute simplicity can be seen as synonymous with absolute simplicity, which may not be considered exciting.

[@MsAssylum]

The Quest And The Mystery Of Existence Couldn't be found,both Scientifically and Conciously.But in Searching for that would definitely be a permanent thing.

[@jjcm3135]

As the late great atheist philosopher Quentin Smith said: "Why is it the case it is false to say there is not something ie nothing ? " Counter-intuitive but points to the right direction. Fr Spitzer may be right.

[@georgebrucks2833]

It is true that the unknown is the largest need of the intellect, though for it, no one thinks to thank God. --Emily Dickinson

[@carminefragione4710]

If Nothing is a negative measure , a directional factor , in a circular function , and Something is a positive measure , then between Something , and Nothing is a ZERO .

[@mobiustrip1400]

"What's it like to die and never wake up?" No answer to that question, but here's a question you can answer:..."what's it like to wake up after never dying?" That's when you are born (A Watts)

[@Dion_Mustard]

why assume death means never awaking?

[@mobiustrip1400]

@@Dion_Mustard i assume nothing of the sort. There is no answer. Yet. However I can be 100 percent that I'm alive right now.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@mobiustrip1400 yes you are alive - i agree - but not necessarily in the way you think you are.

[@mobiustrip1400]

@@Dion_Mustard So then, in which way am I alive, but not necessarily in the way I think 🤔

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@mobiustrip1400 it's very complicated.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would presupposing everything, including nothing, be simple enough without oversimplification?

[@smilyle]

You can't just take yourself out of the equation. If there is a something observing a nothing then there isn't a nothing. That is the whole point of quantum physics. That YOU are ALWAYS part of the Equation. The observer and the doer of the equation is part of the Equation itself

[@francesco5581]

indeed, a not observed reality is "not recorded" , so irrelevant.

[@williamburts5495]

Something coming into being from nonbeing makes no sense therefore only " being " can be the basis of " being "

[@francesco5581]

@@williamburts5495 indeed , so something always was, probably in a no-time reality (I don't see logic in backward eternity)

[@helderalmeida3417]

God is not a man. God is a energy of love

[@rwjazz1299]

just in case you didn't figure it out. We're trying to discuss the existence of the universe with the crutch of religion.

[@nivekvb]

A quantum fluctuation occurs and creates all of existance, but why did the fluctuation come about in the first place?

[@GulfsideMinistries]

Or, what IS the quantum fluctuation? I don't really care how you answer it. You identify what it is, whatever that is, and you are saying it is this rather than that. But then, why THAT? Not just why did it come about or what caused it -- no, the deeper question is, "Why is the quantum fluctuation this rather than that?" The "this" presumes "that." Same with "nothing," which is only meaningful in contrast with a "something." But Spitzer's Absolute Simplicity presumes no such question. It just IS. Ask WHAT it is, and you get pure, undifferentiated is-ness. To ask why it is that is-ness rather than another is to presume the aforementioned is-ness. For to be this rather than that is TO BE this, it is TO BE that. But undifferentiated is-ness is simply TO BE TO BE. And that's what Spitzer is referring to: not a thing that is, but rather the Being of Being.

[@horizons2358]

@@GulfsideMinistries ahh, ok😐

[@timterrell8678]

A quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. A quantum energy field is never entirely quiet and always moving due to the uncertainty principle. Quantum fields never maintain a constant value so there will always be vacuum fluctuations.

[@timterrell8678]

@@GulfsideMinistries “this” does not presume “that” in quantum fields. For example in a quantum field an electron can spin equally in two directions at once. If it is measured it has equal probability to move in either direction. You are thinking classically and not in the quantum world.

[@Aguijon1982]

Universe, why do you exist? Same as you, because I couldn't help it. Universe, where did you come from? Well where else would I go?

[@benridge6570]

I don't have a clue what there point is, but it seems interesting 🤔

[@sergeysimon9099]

You have to split the question in two parts. The existence of God in the first place and than the given existence from God to everything else. I think the whole thing is coming from weird interactions in some higher dimensions. Triggering a cascade of events in lower dimensions to make God ultimate happy for whole eternity. They shaped a form of existence to consume it, as eternity goes along with them. The question why God himself exists is much harder to answer. Because our God the Creator does not know much of himself. He thinks He was created by another God who is even more God as he is. That is the hard part. When our Creator with all his power is not capable to find his creator. He only calls him "Father" and "my God". That way the question becomes even harder - who than created the Creator of our Creator and so on...

[@ericpalmer3588]

Imagine there is nothing, then there are no rules. If there are no rules then there are possibilities, then experience is possible.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“There” IS not anything… well, then “there” would be no possibilities. Even if there were, possibilities don’t actualize themselves. Seems to make more sense to infer a metaphysically/ontologically necessary “thing” that couldn’t fail to be, that exists in virtue of what “it” is, and which grounds everything else.

[@longcastle4863]

The superiority of simplicity seems a pretty baseless assumption. Especially in the face of how complicated existence can get.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“Baseless assumption” That statement could only be made someone who has not spent any serious time studying the arguments for classical theism (DBHart, Feser, Koons, Scotus, etc).

[@RobAgrees]

I would suggest that they are both arguing for the same thing, but calling it different terms. Nothingness and utter simplicity are both nonmaterial states without any dimensional expression or differentiation otherwise.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@RobAgrees non-existence doesn’t have attributes and can’t satisfy a defensible version of PSR (a la Feser 2017) when applied to existence itself.

[@RobAgrees]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns attributelessness itself an attribute you dummy. These are semantics in describing equivalent states.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@RobAgrees non-existence isn’t the source of all reality with intellect and will and which knows all of creation in virtue of knowing itself. You’re either a troll (in which case I salute) or you’ve done basically no reading on classical or even neoclassical theism and the best thinkers in those areas.

[@leonoradompor8706]

The words the voice, let there be Light****

[@michaelbindner9883]

We made up the whole idea that mystery exists.

[@Robinson8491]

I like his notion that nothingness doesn't have to be the only suppositionless substance

[@kristenchauvin8755]

I found that part confusing...

[@Robinson8491]

@@kristenchauvin8755 that is because of your presuppositions ;-) about what nothing is, and what something is

[@phtasyo5955]

If we understand something as anything that which we can conceive, then even nothing is something. But the simplicity without presupposition demonstrates that the capacity to reason ends with the simplicity of because "There is." A state where perception of presuppositions end. Man cannot conceive nothing because even nothing is something as conceived.

[@dn1697]

... but nothing is a human term ... it's a something from nothing problem, assuming nothing was at the beginning ... but the beginning is also questionable is you assume the beginning was absolutely nothing ...

[@kos-mos1127]

The why question cannot be answered because you can always ask why. Why questions have to asked in conjunction with how, what, when and where to have a meaningful discussion.

[@ezioberolo2936]

Two things: (1) Asking why is there anything rather than nothing is the wrong question. If there were nothing we would not be around to ask the question. (2) at our level of present knowledge, there is no such thing as "perfect" or "perfect simplicity" We only have the concept of examples

[@ezioberolo2936]

Typo:" We only have the concepts, no examples" Apologies

[@JoeZorzin]

People ponder such things- but what they really seek is "how to avoid suffering".

[@jjcm3135]

To have more reason to believe helps people to further believe they can become strong to bear what life brings. To aim to be happy is also to avoid suffering. But if suffering comes (and it always does ) the thing then is to bear it with love humility and faith in God who will help us. But you re right we ponder to strengthen hope and develop a mature and courageous heart. Because our hearts will be tried.

[@MeRetroGamer]

There's nothing in nothingness that could restrict nothingness, so nothingness is. Then, that "is" becomes the first restricted reality, and the simplest one that could be. The simplest "thing" that can *be* is just the verb "to be". But a verb is always something active, is an expression. Then if you express that verb as an action you have an active reality, with an unlimited potential in its roots, fractal and evergrowing (as we can see in our universe and, mostly, in life)

[@srb20012001]

I know existence per se knaws at Robert, nonetheless philosophers neatly dismiss such intellectual tail chasing by simply characterizing ontological reality as "brute fact". A powerful admission that doesn't allow debate. Btw, the guest has it right, imo.

[@rabidL3M0NS]

Why is this even a question lol? Nothingness by definition is not a thing, and nonexistence by definition does not exist. Existence HAS to exist. So the question should instead be “why does this SPECIFIC something/universe exist?” Everything exists fundamentally, and this specific something/universe is just part of the whole unified everything/multiverse/consciousness/Brahman/God.

[@williamburts5495]

You ask, " why does this specific something/universe exist? Because it must being that somethingness can't create itself and nothingness can't create anything. Matter and consciousness are just two sides of the same coin called reality

[@russellgehue5084]

I believe that Robert is conflating the concept of "nothing" (that which is not a thing) with that of "non-being". If we ask why there is "being", the answer is obvious. Being is because it is possible for Being to be, whereas it is not possible for non-being to be - for this would violate the law of non-contradiction. Nothing, on the other hand, is the complementary opposite of everything and so the two concepts complete one another in that higher universe of discourse we call "Being". In its broadest sense, the term "thing" signifies whatever can be taken as a subject of discourse or thought and encompasses whatever can be perceived or imagined. Realty, on the other hand, is not a thing, but a complementary mode of being that is subject to neither analysis nor definition. Rather, it is the absolute, independent, and immutable ground of all phenomenal experience. Consequently, only those qualities or characteristics that cannot be predicated of any "thing", such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc., can be rightly predicted of Reality.

[@andrewferg8737]

Nothing has fewer presuppositions??? "Nothing is" implies otherwise.

[@sprocketslip4564]

Could it be the ultimate reality is like a positive and negative , nothing can be without something , something can’t be without nothing .

[@TheTroofSayer]

This video relates directly to the previous one with Keith Ward, asking "What is Eternity?" Eternity across infinite space and time is one thing. Let's now take it in the opposite direction, to the infinitely small. An atom is small. And that atom itself is the size of a galaxy compared to the infinitely small within it. It is said that the Planck scale (Planck length, Planck time, etc) defines the limits of the small - within our universe. This begs the question, what is it about the infinitely small that predisposes to the limits of the Planck scale? The Planck scale does not absolve us of the need to address the void against which it compares. The infinitely small relates to the void (before space and time exist) and is just as relevant as the infinitely large. Which brings us to virtual particles and vacuum energy. I like to think of virtual particles as the attempt by "somethingness" to precipitate from nothingness. Accordingly, we interrogate further... what are the properties that virtual particles must acquire before they can become the matter particles that persist throughout space and time? How might virtual particles acquire these properties? And we come to settle ultimately on Robert Spitzer's interesting conjecture. Is there an interpretation that might wrap up the void and the infinitely small with the infinitely large, in one single, simple unity?

[@jjcm3135]

Are you pointing to something like Berkeley's mystic idealism?

[@RobAgrees]

Penrose's conception of cyclical universe is similar. That an infinitely small and infinitely disperse universe both lack scalar attributes and so are equivalent and give birth to each other successively, with 'us' as intermediate forms gazing upon itself.

[@andrewmoonbeam321]

Very interesting. Did matter presuppose consciousness?

[@RobAgrees]

@@andrewmoonbeam321 Consciousness is a property of self-referential functions, that is, circles, the simplest platonic shape.

[@GulfsideMinistries]

I think Kuhn is mistaken in thinking that nothing has fewer presuppositions that absolute simplicity. He wants to ask about the simple, "Why does it exist?" But of the nothing, you can just as well ask, "Why not anything?" or more generally, "Why nothing?" This is doubly true if *you* are asking. Parmenides is on to something here. We like to think we can imagine simple nothingness, but actually, the way of not-being is meaningless, and to suggest it somehow obtains absolutely insists "Why?" be the question. And I think that's a far harder question. On the other hand, take it as a given I exist. I ask, "Why?" The answer is, "Because Something is." I ask, "So what is that Something?" I give Spitzer's answer. I ask Kuhn's, "Why?" But here, they "Why" is, "Just because." It's a bare fact. It is THE bare fact. It's so bare that I can't even conceptualize a presupposition behind it. It just "is." And that's the difference. Bare nothingness is not so bare that I can't ask why. Simplicity IS so bear that I can't ask why. The simple reason: "Nothing is" is an incoherent statement that begs to be explained. "Existence Is" is not incoherent. It's profound. It's not incoherent. It's just the barest possible fact.

[@Stephenioa]

"absolute simplicity" sounds linke a convenuient cop out - then again - if nothing then something therefore God is also a short out. If nothing then...by definition, there is no god. Therefore, the question - why is there something, rather than nothing supports the notion of there always being something (god)....to start with

[@GulfsideMinistries]

@@Stephenioa I don't know how to respond to "sounds like" assertions. That's really just a statement of how the conclusions land with you. It doesn't have any argumentative force. So . . . okay As to the "if nothing then something therefore God" -- that's an absolutely absurd characterizarion of what Spritzer (or I, or whomever) is arguing. If that's what you're hearing, I suspect it would sound like mere convenience. :-/

[@williamburts5495]

Absolute simplicity is understand that the nature of existence is to " be ". I exist, and to know that you exist you have to be conscious that you exist so if you were not conscious no existence would be known. Being that our experience of what it is like being a human being is grounded in our consciousness makes the physical and psychicial of material existence to be grounded in consciousness.

[@paulfinch6679]

God did it says the priest..... how surprising....

[@chyfields]

I respectfully disagree. Your theory is too egotistical and narcissistic. We are part of the food chain, which suggests to me that our primary purpose is to keep nature in balance by managing the water supply and the food chain with care and love.

[@paulfinch6679]

@@chyfields I can't see how your comment applies to "Why is there something instead on nothing"

[@chyfields]

@@paulfinch6679 I was replying specifically to your personal comment. There is something rather than nothing because consciousness awoke and created a personal playground and companions, in the same way as a child might host an imaginary tea-party.

[@williamburts5495]

@@chyfields The way I see it is that existence cannot be the cause of itself and nothing outside of existence can be the cause of existence, why? Answer: since existence is the essence of " cause " to say existence is caused is to say existence causes existence to exist. Since such an event would have to exist in existence such an event could never occur being that existence is already present and primeval. And nothing outside of existence can be the cause of existence since nothing " not of " existence can be a cause being that it really doesn't exist.

[@robertdeguglielmo7257]

Oh my head hurts

[@sv6k0a39]

Maybe blackholes are a void that deletes matter and energy from existence. So "nothing" is actually the lowest state.

[@Anttys_WeyTua_CTa_Eu986]

Spitzer reframes Aquinas's argument for the existence of God from necessary being. It's a circular argument, as he defines perfect simplicity to require the qualities of existence, and unqualified origin. I don't view this as disqualifying the perspective, rather that it makes it objectively unverifiable, a prerequisite for faith.

[@andrewferg8737]

That existence in and of itself cannot 'not be' is "objectively unverifiable, a prerequisite for faith" ???

[@meta4101]

The alternative presupposition is "everything" which includes "nothing" and all other consistent states. This is called "many worlds".

[@robertcarpenter6800]

Quote from Suzuki Roshi: “I found out that it is necessary…absolutely necessary to believe in nothing. We have to believe in something which has no form or no color…something which exists before every form and colors appear. This is very important point. Whatever we believe in…whatever god we believe in….when we become attached to it, it means our belief is based on, more or less, self-centered idea. If so, it is….it takes time to acquire….to attain perfect belief or perfect faith in it. But if you always prepared for accepting which we see.…is appear from nothing, and we think there is some reason why some form or color or phenomenal existence appear, then, at that moment we have perfect composure. “

[@andrewferg8737]

"necessary to believe in nothing" --- Is darkness substantive? Do lies exist? Don't believe the lie.

[@mismass7859]

What if the opposite of something isn’t nothing, but everything. And the question should be, out of everything, why do we have this particular something. You can chose between divine consciousness containing all infinite possibilities, or if you prefer you can call it an infinite multiverse. The rest is down to relativity, what exist is only where your conscious mind happens to be in this ocean of infinite possibilities. And the question becomes, why are you right here right now, what’s the purpose of your specific place in infinit existence. And the answer is, you are life and exist to explore this question in this particular aspect of infinite possibilities. And perhaps what really asks the question deep within you seeks the same answer too. Out of infinitive possibilities, what is preferable? Awareness exploring infinitive posibilites through individuated consciousness points. The source, exploring infinite possibilities through a specific point in everything, you.

[@mainman2256]

Take away everything including space, time, forces and properties and THEN..then you have nothing lol not even universe for concepts to exist, no place or time for the “presuppositionless” to exist. Just because you can say “limitless simplicity” doesn’t mean you’re actually talking about something

[@quantumdecoherence1289]

I couldn't quite follow this reasoning but I'm inclined to think that since we don't have any examples of "nothing" , existence, starting with the laws of physics is just a brute fact. It's what Brian Greene likes to say, the question may not have any meaning, why there is something rather than nothing. It's akin to asking what is north of the North Pole.

[@RobAgrees]

The Norther Pole, obviously!

[@Stephenioa]

@@RobAgrees "why there is something rather than nothing. It's akin to asking what is north of the North Pole".... ver different questions I propose

[@wordzfailmebro]

Ah..Sweet Mystery Of Life.

[@michaeljacobs5342]

Surely, there had to be something otherwise the Universe would not exist.

[@bluelotus542]

Variety is the mother of enjoyment, but not on the material platform, which is a perverted reflection of spiritual variety.

[@klodius8588]

Anything is something even nothing.

[@Dion_Mustard]

the key to all existence is consciousness.

[@JamesDziezynski]

I appreciate how tactful Robert Kuhn is while Spitzer spins his wheels a bit. Spitzer brings up an interesting point, though, around 2:37 - why wouldn't an unrestricted power be reality itself? It's a counterpoint to the thought that the simplicity of nothingness is an ideal state (or at least, a logical one). Kuhn's response is great though: if there's exists a choice between complex reality and the simplicity of nothingness, why choose complexity? It's interesting that Spitzer posits that perfect simplicity is without presupposition. It dodges Kuhn's question by saying a "simple something" is equivalent to "nothing" and because we're here, "simple reality" may be the superior "choice" of an outside observer. Of course, there are no answers but I enjoy the discourse.

[@scoreprinceton]

It might be the field of natural languages that has a newer word but does not have any newer answer or question it seems

[@leonoradompor8706]

Nothingness is humility and meekness****

[@Wol747]

A discussion for the sake of discussion.

[@لالهوةإلالهوتي]

Why is nothing not presupposed?

[@Qeyoseraph]

Why? Simple. Art. Beauty. Companionship. Love. #rotaercmai

[@BobbyCashGuitar]

Paramahansa Yogananda Guruji Master

[@ManiBalajiC]

Everything is 50:50 to actually make is not go against each other.. If there is something nothing would have existed or would be state after the end of matter..

[@thomasridley8675]

My god doesn't need an explanation ? I have to disagree with that being any kind of rational answer. It's only a rational answer to those that have accepted it as a fact. Something we do way too easily. Just on someone's word that it's true. So who are you really putting your faith in ? God, the book that you were given or just the men stating that it's all true. Considering the wide spectrum of beliefs, I would say that it's more of the last one. Just find the church that reinforces your expectations and your beliefs will be verified. 🙄

[@mandarkumthekar8565]

If you convince Something is nothing then there wouldn't be any problems of existence.

[@williamburts5495]

You would just have to explain why suffering still persist

[@daveduffy2823]

So, remove past and future boundaries and all that is left is just reality. That means we are nothing but an instance in reality.

[@hugobite]

Please give subtitles 🙏

[@moses777exodus]

The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist. In the beginning, there was Singularity (1).

[@GabrielGarcia-jf2uc]

Lets imagine that all that exists are humans, no planets, no things, no quanton fields, just humans, the question is: where the first human came from?

[@pjtube1508]

Take away spatial manifold, take away temporal manifold. OK. take away logical+causal manifolds and “why” question becomes non-applicable

[@tcl5853]

Wow- best God explanation ever.

[@HigherPlanes]

he said a lot of words but i don't know what he said.

[@ramithuday5042]

The mystery of existence is that it makes us live to know what death is and we end up dying without knowing what life is..

[@georgegrubbs2966]

Why is this question so perplexing to so many people? The question boils down to "What is the foundational state of all there is?" Possible answers: (1) Only God existed. (2) Absolutely nothing. (3) A fundamental substrate of primordial substance. One can ask, "Why does God exist?" and "Why does a primordial substrate exist?" I don't believe there is an answer to either of these questions. We can only speculate with no substantive support for it. The answerable question is, "Where did the observable universe come from?" Options: (1) God created the universe. (2) The universe came from absolutely nothing. (3) The universe emerged from a primordial substrate of some kind of substance. Option (1) is not possible since immaterial (God) cannot (to our knowledge) create material. Option (2) Truly something cannot emerge from truly nothing. Note: When cosmologists and theoretical physicists speak of "nothing" or a "vacuum," they do not mean absolutely nothing. They mean physical laws exist, some basic quantum field exist, etc. So, in their mind, our universe came from something. Option (3) is the most probably. There has always been "something" and that something is a fundamental substrate from which our observable universe emerged and possible many other universes emerged.

[@supremeenlightenedtramp1080]

The answers to all his questions are hiding in plain sight, but he doesn't want to face it ! the whole of reality and our existences are here for a purpose, and that's just all there is to it .

[@brenanmayhew]

Or perhaps the void of the unknown and the purposelessness and meaninglessness of it all is very real and you don't want to face it, so you read your wants into reality, which I'm guessing is some sort of God belief. Rather than take comfort in the thought of dying and going to heaven, I take comfort in the thought of us continuing to progress and building a heaven on earth in this reality whether I'm in it or not, although we lowkey live in a heaven like state rn depending on who you are and where you live

[@mksundstrom]

Why assume that zero simpler than one?

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24 KJV