John Leslie - Why is There Anything at All?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 гру 2023
- Shop for the holidays and support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Why is there a world, a cosmos, something, anything instead of absolutely nothing at all? If nothing existed, there would be nothing to explain. That anything exists demands some kind of explanation. Of all the big questions, this is the biggest. Why anything? Why not nothing? What can we learn from the absence of nothing?
For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Watch more interviews on the mystery of existence: shorturl.at/fvN01
John Andrew Leslie is a Canadian philosopher who focuses on explaining the world’s existence. He is University Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
Get free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
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.
Love this. This question has haunted and plagued me my whole life as well, and it makes me feel better knowing I'm not the only one.
It’s a beauty
Genesis 2:18.
@@sven888 The god theories explain nothing, it just kicks the can down the road and asks: where did god come from?
There is only God and the reason why there is Differentiation within Oneness is Motion or Fluctuations as they call it in Physics.@@emergentform1188
@@emergentform1188or he doesn't realise he's a freebie unaware of his stricture.
Billy Preston sings " Nothing from nothing leaves nothing " " You got to have something " .😂😂😂😂😂😂
Don't you remember I told ya I'm a soldier in the war on poverty 😂
I often find these seemingly simple questions yield the most interesting answers
language goes on holiday
Interesting but of little value, whatever value is.
This is the so-called fundamental question.
Simple answer: Absolute nothing would necessarily entail no rules at all, not even distinctions. Without distinctions, there would be no distinction between true and false, nor would there be any rules that would prevent or require anything. Hence we exist, because no rule prevents it, and because no distinction would be possible between nothing and the reality we experience.
Well that was certainly informative.
i hope you're joking
bloody hell right???
I actually think the more interesting question is why we cannot answer this question. Is it because our brains are not smart enough, but one day will be? Is it because we haven’t yet found the right tools to answer this question (our logic, reasoning, sciences and mathematics not being up to the task)? Is it because of our situation? That is, finding ourselves within a situation or system we need to be on the outside of to answer? Or, somewhat similarly, is it because the answers lies within or from the perspective of some other dimensions we don’t have the sensory perceptual apparatuses to know or experience? Or some other reason?
You made a similar statement on a previous video and it got me thinking. I really like the premise of being unable to access the question because we're restricted to a dimension where our minds arent capable of even conceiving such an answer
I think that is an incisive summary of how many people, me included, think. The older I get, the more I am moving towards a view that the fundamental questions of universal and personal existence are beyond our reasoning capabilities. Human consciousness and reasoning are amazing, but, not unlimited.
I think it’s a consequence of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, which proved that within any logical system its axioms cannot be proven. If physical processes constitute a closed consistent system, then they can be mapped to an equivalent system of logic. Therefore the incompleteness theorem applies. The underlying nature of reality maps to the system’s axioms. Therefore those axioms are inaccessible to us from within the system itself.
Of course this depends on the basic physical processes mapping to a closed consistent logical system, which is required in order for a complete Theory Of Everything to be possible. So if we can have a TOE then we probably can’t have an answer to this question.
you have every sense needed to find the meaning of life. The answer is here it's just not what you think it is. The answer is right under your nose.
@@TactileTherapy Yes I got the idea from something a fellow commenter posted in the comment section of one of ctt’s other recent episodes-I think about self identity. For me, also, it feels like it opens up possible new way of thinking about things.
Treat to meet John Leslie. Thanks
It often seems to me that nothing should be able to exist, that it would require an infinite regress of creators or that somehow something came from nothing...yet here I am...proving myself wrong with my very existence.
maybe it's all nonwell-founded and there truly is an infinite hierarchy with no beginning. Such infinite structures are very natural in math (p adics have natural fractal structure for one)
"Infinite regress" is Richard Dawkins' silver bullet God killer. BUT...he numerous times uses "supernatural god"
defining to what he refers as God. Infinite regress IS the 1st Law of Thermodynamics....NATURAL LAW.
"Supernatural" is not constrained by the natural; that's THE definition
The question is not why anything exists, but how things exist. It is altogether assured that the universe we see is the product of all of the processes that occurred before it. The human mind is not capable of truly grasping conditions where space and time are not established. Everything that we know begin to exist at some point in time. If the universe is eternal, that assumption has to give way
An eternal universe might raise more problems than it solves because it becomes impossible to locate any particular instant
@@zotriczaoh7098 it’s just a matter of perspective. You can try this yourself. Can you imagine that life begins right now and goes on forever? Sure, everyone can. Now, try to imagine that your life never began. That’s a much more difficult idea.
@@zotriczaoh7098 You wouldn't be able to locate anything in it, nor do I see that as a requirement.
That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual) is by definition everything in general (potential).
0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
It's a luxury in life
To have enough food and security to ponder these questions instead of just trying to survive.
For real. Some people just ponder about if they are going to be able to pay rent next month
Why is there anything at all? Because we exist!! We can over-analyze the most simplistic facts!
Consider the paradoxical statement, “Nothing exists.” Suppose we assume the negative, that nothing means the absence of everything including space, then nothing means nonexistence. Then our paradoxical statement becomes “nonexistence exists” an obvious contradiction. This means that non-existence cannot exist and hence existence is infinite.
Brilliant.
There would be no universe without me here, obviously
True
@@Jay-kk3dv it's the inevitability of being indeed
It depends on a person's perspective and life situation how he sees existence. I personally see it as a miracle. There could have been simply nothing. But there is this unique, beautiful, yet scary at times Universe. Its a miracle. I feel awe, and I feel gratitude towards existence. I know people who are going through tough times (or have ego) will complain about existence itself. But lets be honest existence doesnt care about life, pain or death. Thats a very small transitory part in its dictionary. It cares about evolution and progression.
And its so damn detailed! The best we can do is try to learn and understand its rules. That can definitely help make the ride less bumpy.
Acceptance though is the most powerful backup tool thats at offer.
Bravo
I think a likely answer is that nothing exists and our entire universe is just a funny way of looking at a blank nothing.
I like this channel which asks the basic questions. This one of course is unanswerable. Essentially, it poses the "First Cause" philosophical question. The only honest answer is we don't know how the whole thing started and therefore why it exists.
what if the whole thing didn't start but is eternal & what if there is a reason to ours & the whole things existence
I guess there are many possibilities, but we are pretty much in the dark regarding the nature and shape of the cosmos.@@No-xw3jl
@@No-xw3jlNeither possibility is satisfactory. Something being eternal is bothersome, and there being no time before a start is bothersome.
then you're gonna have to live with bothersome aren't you@@bozo5632
Humans have never experienced any contact with nothingness. The existence of nothingness is just a philosophical hypothesis without any basis in reality.
Much stranger than the existence of "something" is for someone to suppose that there could be "nothing."
I'm pretty sure that no analytic philosopher would claim that a nothing could exist. We are trying to understand non existence. This cuts to the root of our existential insecurity. After all we must all cease to exist yet somehow we began to exist at some time or other.
@@zotriczaoh7098 No. Humanity has never witnessed the creation of something ex-nihilo. We only see how things transform.
@@mbolez There is a small logical flaw in your interpretation. :)
there is no non existence@@zotriczaoh7098
If the question; Why is there something rather than nothing? is the wrong question, then what is the right question? The LINE hypothesis suggests the right question is; "Why is there change rather than no change?". Change is the most fundamental property of nature and exists at all scales. The concept of something vs nothing is moot as any 'something' that does not change is definable as 'nothing'. So the question becomes; Why is there change rather than no change? If you exist to ask this question, then change exists. Hence, the new question becomes; did change have a beginning? This is asking; is or was there states of nature of no change? Ergo a state of nothingness?
If there was or is a foundation of no-change it clearly has changed causing nothing to become something thereby permitting you and I to ask the question.
Hence, even if there was, or are states or periods of nature of no change lasting for any duration, such periods of nothingness, undergo change, hence the capacity for change is the apriori condition of nature writ large that requires no precursor condition or causal information state for its existence since any such condition is defined by its capacity to change requiring the preexistence of the capacity for change. Change, unlike concepts of Gods, universes, somethings, nothings, is the only property of nature that is self-defining in this way. Even in the absence of any or no things (information) or any laws or rules, the capacity to change exists. Hence, change is the prime mover. Laws and rules implementing change in specific states only arise upon the emergence of specific information states (things) or the lack thereof.
We know it, yes. Idk if find an ‘it’ tho… QM says every wave/particle in universe is the same. Fab interview. Thank you. ❤
I look at it like this, quantum fields always exist even in empty space therefore true nothingness is impossible, something will always exist no matter what, otherwise we wouldnt be here. There is no such thing as nothing
For those who believe nothing at all can't exist, they should visit my home town!
Trying to answer questions like this only proves that we’re quite far from the top of the evolutionary ladder 😊
How does it prove that? 🤨
It might mean that we're teetering at the top. Rather than being a sign of our genius magnificence, it might be a symptom of maladaptation. You don't see ants wasting time pondering their navels when they could be looking for food.
(We think we're smarter, but they've kept it up for like 100,000,000 years, and will likely outlive us by another 100,000,000. Stupid is as stupid does.)
Not really since all is ONE.
The pool of slime, was more intelligent than us, Brilliant
Great one-liner but incorrect from the absolute point of view. @@barbt.9211
Either there is something or there is nothing. Our reality has something. You can't have both something and nothing. Nothing is only achievable in the imagination of humans or more advanced beings. Without something, this imagination could not even exist, so the notion of nothingness is really quite absurd. 😊
Nothing is everything blended together
Well better than just nothing
The only explanation is a consciousness, otherwise deterministically you need to find a "first set" (that had then rolled out a complex universe) and that was there by chance, with no explanation. How can something with no intent produce anything at all or even worse an elegant and complex universe with consciousness inside. Is determinism itself that destroy the possibility of materialistic view.
The most freaky question if you really think about it
The Universe, Nature, Cosmos exists and we are part of its evolution. I choose to view it as God because it makes sense to me.
that's because you don't know the meaning of life
@@No-xw3jl And obviously you're the only one who does, right?
correct@@Resmith18SR
Maybe you don't know the meaning of humbleness. @@No-xw3jl
as John Lennox would caution, never confuse mechanism with agency. It is possible we can all have one mechanistic explanation, let's just amicably part ways on the agency explanation. The debate should be on what is the best agency to cause such a mechanism.
Energy has to be conserved perfectly as there has been infinite interactions already.
Who told you this nonsense?
@@Drogers8675 Why do you say it’s nonsense?
Its an absurd question, as there never was and never will be a process, where something can come out from nothing, thus leading to a conclusion, that there can not be any original creator, just infinite amount of empty space and materia in it.
The major questions....”What is Anything”.....”What is Thinking”.......”What is asking “Questions”........”What Wakes Up”
I think the universe exists because, if you think about it, nothing has to be something. You can't just have a state of non existence, its very "non existence" must exist within a framework that contrasts its antithesis to existence. When declaring something 'non existing' - it must come along with the contrast to describe "what" doesn't exist in order to have any meaning.
Darkness is the absence of Light. Sadness provides contrasts to permit the feeling of happiness to be experienced. Yin cannot exist without a yang, they give each side meaning and justification in its realness.
Right
The fundamental wrong here is “labeling “
History is filled with the inability to label or understand things only discover and understand later.
So rather than say that it’s inconceivable to think of “blank” or “nothing”, why not say that “nothing” is just everything that we (all human knowledge and understanding) do not know, discovered or labeled yet?
You see the thing is, it isn’t ! What a question ?
It’s this very question that keeps us in the question . With no answer,open ended and changing ,it’s limitless
I suppose it’s that very reason that allows us to create our lives. Because if we knew the answers outright ,the journey would end. So the clever and the wise sit down and devise clever ways of understanding the question ,which agin sets us on our journey of discovery.over and over………just once I’d like to not search and understand but instead stand in awe and appreciation of the majesty of existence!! Each person you meet has the life power within them ,in fact we share it.
Perhaps the answer to the question is it’s all happening now so we can share and experience it with each other.
If you asked some very advanced aliens as to why the universe is not "nothing", they would probably explain that the universe IS "nothing". It is just Nature's funny definition of "nothing".
The idea exists
before any thing.
Meaning : Metaphor
Because experience is the "food" for consciousness. To be conscious is to experience, and to experience is to be conscious, and you cannot experience anything from nothing.
"Why is there anything at all?"...because there isn't...there is just THIS...and THIS.. is not any "thing" at all...which is why THIS can seem to show up (to Itself) as Everything & any 'thing' at all...including (in this case) a so-called "John" and a co-called "Rob" sitting down to muse on such internal queries...THIS (to quote Amanda Gefter) is "what NOTHING looks like from the inside"... and one last thing...I love Closer To Truth... and in many ways observing a so-called "Rob" attempting to "get closer" to a TRUTH that "he" already IS...has perhaps become what "I" have grown to love about it most...(...although, granted, the same is not likely true for "him"...) 🙃🙏♥♾
Just say honestly "we don't know."and we are still alive or there is life and eagerness willing to know all this .suspence and adventure is must to live.
I think all we can say for sure is that existence always existed. There was never a "time" when there was truly "nothing". Also, if there is an intelligence behind the creation of the cosmos, then it has always existed and even it doesn't know how it came to be. The eternal mystery.
Parmenide
The reason there is Anything at all is because there is Nothing. Adding everything together we have nothing. If oneself is the rest of everything else, the Self is a blank, nothing.
10:21 I would say this applies whether we are in a multiverse, or we are "just" in this single one.
Go Bluejays!!
It applies to the biggest highest thing no matter what. If there is a multiverse, that is still something, why does it exist? If it's s god, he is something, why does he exist? It seems to make a lot more sense for there to just be nothing because it's more simple and there wouldn't need to be a reason for there to be nothing, but there is something.
The fundamental law - nothing is the only potential with a zero chance of existence...
I always liked the theistic/semi-logical approach that if an unlimited, eternal, ever-existing, all-knowing, ever-present “being” was the truth, then from a knowledge-completion perspective, knowing everything would have to include the knowledge of not knowing everything, hence the requirement for an experience of limitation.
🤫
In vedanta this is ascribing human states to, or superpostioning God - thus duality is God's nature is implied: Knowing and ignorance. Anthropology isn't wrong for grasping God, but must be consciously known as only a catalyst.
Is there darkness in the light? Is there the quality of coldness in fire?
How can something that is omniscient have ignorance?
Where there is only ONE and no other, no comparision, no differentiation, no disparate states, nor discrepancy, there arises no information, ignorance, diversity, interaction, attraction and repulsion, relation or duality. God isn't embodied. About this darkness the wisemen discussed matter, which like like the shade - a shadow isn't something, it's a lack of something(light). Ignorance doesn't exist; but as condition: jiva.
Plato states all learning a mere recollection - all Knowledge always been there, although forgotten, is remembered when realized.
sorry buddy but there's no god, not an existent being anyway@@S3RAVA3LM
Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?
@@S3RAVA3LM Many texts speak of a “veil”. Scripture relates death to a tearing of the curtain so what is truly there can be fully seen. As a free agent, I believe one can choose to wear a veil of ignorance, knowing that no veil could ever corrupt the truth that is. To me, there is a plausible / rational path to the infinite knowing limits through choice. But the inverse I think is impossible outside of faith. I think we are flatlander animators that complete the overall puzzle. I think we are countably infinite subsets of the whole.
"Why is There Anything at All?"....at one time in the past you weren't around. At some point in the future you won't be around. Nor will the Sun, the Moon, Earth.
does something happen in response to consciousness, whether quantum or other?
Yes, in quantum mechanics consciousness is a detector. Some of the dogmatic scientists don’t want to admit this.
Our imagination is the seed of God in all of us.
I don't think that's true, in fact, I'm sure it's not true
The key to that answer lies in oneself. We are asking the question based on our own existence because if we are not there then who would ask the question. One needs to understand that existence and it's knowledge goes together. The knowledge "I exists " and "my actual existence" goes together. One cannot be without another. Similarly it applies to whole existence. Existence and it's knowledge goes together. Without knowledge of existence there cannot be any existence. That Knowledge can only be achieved through eternal cyclic movement with division of subject and object in it.
Those who say that we can't answer why something rather than nothing are wrong. Suppose if we ask the same question in this way --- "Why universe has to be the way it is or why can't it be stable or if it has to move then why can't it move without animate matter." Now if people say we can't answer this question then that is childish answer.
If Question has arise in your domain then the answer also exists in your domain. Because Questions and answers are just the words given to actions.
Nothing is dependent on something. Something means form, so nothing means formless. One needs to understand that this Existence or universe has to end somewhere. After that formless begins which is the background of existence. That formless is nothing but self knowledge ----eternal, infinite and absolute.
Thanks 😊
Confusing why with how evidences basic misunderstanding of that which is. Presumption of purpose is just that, presumptuous, and persistently misdirecting.
The answer to this question is easy and doesn’t need a big discussion haha
"we don't have proof that a blank is the natural status". I completely agree with that. Thinking that the blank (nothingness) is the natural status is a human fabrication. The universe is in essence rather complex and based on chance.
The universe cannot exist because of chance, because chance is something that happens within existence.
@@Jorbz150 Weĺl it seems that the universe at the smallest and most fundamental level is built on probability. This one of the key findings of quantum mechanics, and this is an established fact in physics.
@@williamvanleuven414 I disagree with that statement about the universe being based on probability, for reasons I won't go into here. Just because something involves probability throughout doesn't tell me that probability is "fundamental" in the way we are discussing here.
Edit: I also don't think something being fundamental to physics means it would have predated physics...
That is to say, it makes no sense to say "the probability of existence coming from nothing" because there is no physics before physics, or probability. You can't have probability BEFORE the universe, which you'd need for your concept to make sense.
The notion of a Mind is inseparable from the notion of an ‘I’. Therefore it must be a transcendent being, namely God.
The answer is simple:
Because the existence of non-Existence is a self inconsistent notion.
So the question "why anything exists at all?" is meaningless.
I got a better one... Why is there bills, and why do we have to pay them?
Bc there is no God to create a world where we don't have to care for ourselves and others.
You actually don’t have to pay them :)
That's nowhere near as "better" or important. In fact, the most important thing is that there is something because if there was nothing then what would there be to be important?
You're late. Now you pay extra.
On the other hand we only need to learn how to do our job. I work in IT so I know computers. I don’t know how to make a car, yet I have a car. I don’t know how to build a house, but I have a house. I don’t know how to run a power station but I have an electricity supply. The same for a water supply, gas, farm grown food from all over the world, roads, railways, aircraft and world travel, ships, movies, music, clothing, medicines and health care, etc, etc. I don’t know how to make or supply any of those things or many more, yet I take advantage of all of them. All I have to do is my one job and pay my share. Thats actually a pretty decent deal.
the funny thing is that if there were no death we would not think on how the universe exists
becouse we would be like the universe, so we would know everything
Simple answer… human being are the only animal that feels a need to answer “why”. There needs to be a Why for everything. But that is not an inherent part of the existence of the universe because Why implies there is a planned reason and there is none. The universe just is. Now if one is looking for a causal reason then the question is What. What caused the universe and not if there was some motive to its cause. Not all that complicated.
Why not?
The answer is simple. Because we exist its possible for something to exist. Brcause its possible it must eventuslly happen. No matter how small the probability infinite chances for that to occur means the liklihood of it happening is 100%
As the human race has aged, we have become less religious. The future looks like the meaning of life is making our existence as comfortable as possible through science.
*Thought Experiment:* The overwhelming size and scope of the entire universe can be regressed back to a point of singularity. The entire spectrum of life can be regressed down to a single celled organism. In mathematics, the infinities of positive numbers and negative numbers can be regressed down to +1 and -1 with "0" separating the two. And lastly, the entire complexity of your own personal "being" can be regressed back to the union of a single-celled ovum and a single-celled sperm.
What this demonstrates is that "Existence" clearly evolves from *simplicity to complexity* as this is the only logic-based template it has ever known. This also demonstrates that once "Existence" is set in motion, it keeps adding new information to the "collective database of Existence." If this were not true, then "Existence" would have been perfectly satisfied with remaining at the quark and gluon stage (or as a singularity).
If you can accept everything written above as a *possibility,* then the question, *_"Why evolve into higher complexity?"_* should naturally follow.
If "Existence" keeps adding *new information* to the "collective database of Existence," then there is obviously an unimaginably larger amount of data available today then there was back at the T=0 point of Big Bang. There is exponentially more information attached to what it means to be "alive" after 4 billion years of life than there was back when only single-celled prokaryotes existed. Likewise, there are volumes more information attached to "you" at your current age than there was back when you were merely a zygote.
Based on this, it is logical to consider that "Existence" is seeking greater understanding of what "Existence" represents, and this same level of self-understanding is equally sought by you, me, and everyone else who has ever lived. "Existence" is seeking, generating and collecting *all available information* that can better define "Existence."
... But once again, "Why?"
At a bare minimum, everything that exists shares a *single property* in that everything that exists rises above the level of "Nonexistence." However, anything that does so must also establish *justification* for possessing that property because there are no _free rides_ in "Existence!" *Example:* If humans existed only on Mars, then "lawnmowers" would not exist. The existence of a lawnmower in the absence of grass would obviously not be *justified.*
Since "Existence" and "Nonexistence" are opposites, it is also logical that any *new information* that can further promote "Existence" over "Nonexistence" would be embraced and any information to the contrary would be rejected. Logic states that "Existence" would only be interested in any information that can *support* and *justify* "Existence."
So here we all are 13.8 billion years later with every one of us possessing a self-aware consciousness. Every human that has ever lived has added their own personal information to the "collective database of Existence." We embrace our existence and openly declare that it is better to exist than to not exist. We bring to the table *new constructs* such as love, sacrifice, charity, and forgiveness which serve to justify "Existence."
As with the entirety of "Existence," all we have ever known is our own existence, ... even though we constantly face the inevitability of our own nonexistence every day. We fear and constantly seek to avoid death because we have consciously assigned *value* to our own existence.
... So, this all begs the question:
*Q:* If everything I have written is true and "Existence" has evolved everything that exists to expand the knowledge and understanding of what it means to exist, and "Existence" has likewise used us to establish that much-needed justification for "Existence," then *is it logical* for "Existence" to deny us our continued existence after we've provided that service? ... In other words, is it in the best interest of "Existence" to facilitate the "Nonexistence" of the very same mechanisms that ultimately provided *justification* for "Existence," itself?
what if the universe has created us to find the meaning of life for itself. What if we are part of that universe that wants to know the meaning of life. What if we created ourselves from a thought through billions of years ago that has led to us being here in existence? what if we are just a physical manifestation of a thought of desire to know what the meaning of life is?
it's up to us to find the answer to the meaning of life with all the senses we have - for the universe's sake.
Since at least four of the answers considered here must be nonsense, and the fifth is silly, this takes us further from the truth. If there was nothing, it would have no extension; hence, there could be nothings everywhere, but they would be unobservable, since they generate no action. The distinction exists only in our minds.
There is virtually an infinite number of ways for existence. But there is only one way to have an absolute nothing. Therefore the probably of existence is virtually infinity to one.
sure, let's leave it to probability, that'll solve it lol
that mean nothing. even if you have something there would have been infinite probabilities that was totally irrelevant, one atom , a cloud, a banana ... The problem is not only if there is something is that is also meaningful, complex and elegant.
Your logic is flawed; you haven't assigned probabilities to each of the ways existence can be. For all we know, non-existence is far more probable.
There are an infinite number of non-existences, and only one existence after all.
I'm not sure I can apply that logic to my bank account.
@@typedef_ Probably will yes! 🙂
What is the purpose of existence? The universe the galaxies and everything
to reproduce
What is the sound of one hand clapping ? Perhaps your question has the same answer.
I think this question has religious roots, however is interesting one to think about the existence rather than something beyond it.
That is what this channel exists for. To try to drag actual scientists into confirming his religious confirmation bias. Just like Templeton Foundation give4s money to scientists that drag religion into their presentations.
Because "nothing" doesn't and can't exist. IF it existed, it would be something.
Nothing is random (determinism) and the central aspect of the Universe is us, with consciousness synonymous with man, and the vital aspect of C being Love and its law, The Law of Love, which is to metaphysics like or figuratively the solid foundation or cornerstone of a building. Central to the "As above, so below" or the macrocosm/microcosm (God the Universe/Man) unity is Love. As man represents Universal Love in his most evolved state, so does the God/Universe macrocosm that created us also represent Love, and even though God is not a being it does have Love, the highest moral intelligence, and the awesome Law of Karma aka The Spiritual Law of Justice. God, a nonbeing that inherently has the highest consciousness and Morality, loves us and gives some of us at least the potential to be godlike -- wise and righteous, which represents happiness. Our purpose as God's potential or actual servants (some of us serve ourselves) is to love ourselves and love others who are worthy, and to understand as much of God's creation as we are able to. The ignorance of God represents something a pious thinker should be able to figure out for themself.
I'm like # 420!
To me, nothing is just black outer space with no particles or energy contained in it. Someone can say "well that is still something." How could you even take away black empty outer space? What does space not existing even mean? Not even coherent
Universe must be cyclical because otherwise there would be a perfect balance between things. Maybe not, coz not understanding the math concerning infinity well enough i see here.
Why is there income tax at all?
While intuition might impetuously tell us it would have made more sense for there to have been nothing, intuition is often wrong. Either way, there _might have been nothing_ before there was _something._ "But you can't get something from nothing" they say. *_Why not?_*
If there is absolute _nothing,_ there is also no law or logic forbidding _something_ spontaneously coming into being from nothing. _Nothing_ is governed neither by the laws we observe in our universe nor our intuition. It has no rules, no logic, no rhyme, no reason, and none of the structures to which our sanity clings so desperately - nothing. It makes as much sense for us to try and project our intuition or laws of physics onto _nothing_ as it does to claim that any distant alien civilization we might find must necessarily also tend to eat a meal at around noon.
A very interesting question, but science can only investigate the universe we have and not one we don't. As has been pointed out by some commentators even a vacuum is filled with the all pervading quantum fields and fluctuations in these give rise to particles and light, but then one might ask how did the quantum fields come into being.
Why is There Anything at All? depends upon who is asking this Question, Inside & Outside of all there are many layers asking same thing , There Are N numbers of Reason to this , as per your stage & understanding , All the Answer is linked within Fundamental Reality within everything or this Reality will Collapse into itself without Love & truth nothing Exist in Existence
No wonder why 1Corinthians 3:19 says, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."
please go back to your christian videos & regurgitated words
Why is There Anything at All? Genesis 2:18.
Because it is created.
Why is there anything at all.....
Because God was bored with eternal bliss.
Now all we need to figure out is why God exists.
1:00 ... perhaps well some people would say mind but not the mind of a God I mean ( some would say God some would say a different kind of mind ) the Dalai Lama for example sees everything as mental but he says there's no personal God in Buddhism and it's not even clear that there is any God in Buddhism (okay) 1:24 well look all five of those are radically different from each other I mean their character their concept is just very significantly different so let me understand each of them a little deeper. 1:35 JL:
I thought that Warren Buffett was also a scientist.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Which begs the question, "why are there videos like this? "...
Does creator needs a meaning to create a existence
-osho philosophy
No multiverse, but just one infinite one. No evidence of such boundaries(!) to space. 3d but just about how materia is organised and behaves.
Q. What is the source of all information?
A. All information is provided by the human individual five senses.
C. This fact must be the starting point for all inquiry.
Let’s rephrase the question as: what is the purpose of reality?
Then, by observation: The purpose of the universe (reality) is to provide a vessel for intelligence to express itself.
The human five senses are extremely unreliable and rejected in most actual scientific research.
Our existence proves the existence of a Creator.
We are contingent beings.
Contingency cannot go on for ever in an infinite regress, because we would not currently exist if there was an infinite chain of causes prior to our existence.
Hence, there MUST be a non-contingent First Cause. A necessary being.
God, the Creator is the necessary being.
Even supposing we accept the idea of a first cause, why must we also accept any other attributes for it, such as that it cares (or cared) how people cut their hair enough to create a law about it.
@@simonhibbs887 If you admit there is a difference between unhygienic and hygienic lifestyles, you would see the value in an authoritative source guiding you instead of just your culture, which might or might not get it right. That's just one aspect of why Divine guidance is a bundle of 'little' but very helpful and even life-saving or -enhancing perks that you get along with the major guidance on the right core beliefs that provide essential answers to the deepest quests of the intellect and the heart and soul.
@@DesertVox I can see why some people like the idea of guidance by an authoritative source, as you put it, but ok,at it from my perspective. There are an endless variety of ideas about god to choose from. Which do I pick and why? If I choose to believe in a god, then it’s not really that religion being authoritative because I picked it. Even within each religion there are numerous interpretations and contradictory ideas about god. So there is no authority, there’s just different systems I could choose. How did you choose yours, or did you just stick with the religion you happened to be born into?
What if there is only God? @@simonhibbs887
YT is deleting my comment because YT contains algorithms that suppress Islamic content exposing other ideologies. Sorry. @@simonhibbs887
Who says there is anything at all?
The way this question is always asked implies there could be nothing, i.e. that nothing could exist. Simply put, nothing cannot exist, because if nothing could exist, it would not be nothing. The idea/concept of “nothing” is nonsensical. Existence implies something. Perhaps the question should be more specific.
Could there be nothing at all ? I don't think so. Even what's called "void" has quantum fluctuations. "Nothing" doesn't exist when something exists. Can't exist. Or maybe the right way to consider it is "if something/anything exists, then "nothing" can't exist".
As its given the name "nothing" that makes it something...
@@ONEYEDPiRAT Too easy... They're talking physical world. Anything can exist in the word realm. The words "dragon" o "unicorn" exist. But only in the word realm.
He's not sure how it begins, but he's 100% sure GOD didn't do it. BRILLIANT.
God isn’t nothing, so if we’re going to explain why there is anything we must explain why there is god. If we can explain effects as being caused by themselves then we don’t need god to explain the universe because it can be its own cause. So either god can’t be the reason there is something rather than nothing, or god is superfluous as an explanation.
@@simonhibbs887 Hi, Very logical, but GOD is alogical, but let's
Suppose there was a power greater than GOD and created GOD, so what
We are not responsible to GOD'S maker but to our maker, that ends the infinite regression argument. Right, Thanks
It seems to me from casual observation that every concept of God I've ever heard about was a clearly human invention in every sense and detail. If there's also a real God, in addition to all the earthly stories about gods, then I would call that a fantastic coincidence.
But it still wouldn't explain where God came from. No matter how you slice it, it's turtles all the way down. You can't just put a bigger turtle on the bottom - any nine year old will win that debate (via tenacity).
@@barbt.9211 In your opinion (but not credibly) that ends the chain of our responsibility, but not the chain of creative causation. As for god being alogical, per the original Greek of the Gospel of John god is ‘logos”, which connotes an appeal to rational discourse that relies on inductive and deductive reasoning, and its clear that this is how early Greek Christian theologians interpreted it. It’s usually translated into English as “word”, but that’s because it comes to us via Latin where it’s ‘verbum’, despite the fact that in the original Greek ‘word’ in the grammatical sense would be ‘lexis’.
@@simonhibbs887 Absolutely correct, anything beyond responsibly is inrevlent.
Thanks for your input.
No thing doesn’t exist.
Given his five possibilities, he is missing one really obvious one - GOD. He obviously wants to blur God into and out of his fifth category of mind, so I will say I will accept his 5 if he accepts a sixth - GOD. When pushed about God he says that this is outside the realms of physics. I don't get that logic; phyicists can accept other theories for the existence of something including mind (of itself not a natural or quantifiable thing), but God should not even be in the mix?? If the final answer is actually God, the how will you ever know that the other five theories are wrong?
The sort of questions starting mental masturbation with a lot of language bending
Be careful!!! You may wind up like “The beast in the jungle” you’ll study this your whole life, only to find out in the end… you never lived…
... or that you are the eternal one.
Who says there is anything?
That's an assumption based on persistent noise
God started it all , and god always has been here forever and ever , so there you have it , the end , wait there is no end 😂
Everything boils down to the Universe is here but because it is or the Universe is here because there is a Creator. Every time there is a binary choice to make our universe, it the result either has to be random/accidental or purpose.
there is no creator
@@No-xw3jl Can you prove that? The fact that we have uncovered the mechanisms of the universe (the how) in no way answers the question of the why of the universe (of the reason it is exist). It is a question that cannot be answered by science. Journalists seek to answer 5 questions: Who, what, when, where, how and why. Why is last because it is motivation and often difficult to discern. The detective separates information into means (or mechanism), opportunity (time and space) and motive. Motive is the most difficult of all. Intelligence operations divide information into what is known for sure, what is believed to be known, what is not known and what can never be known. Physicists keep reducing the Universe until they reach a point of where "it (the universe) cam from the bit (information)" and this information cannot be destroyed. Where did this information come from?