I feel I did - if there is nothing 'prior' to something then something has no cause/reason. — Devans99
In the case of [1], I see your point, but I think my argument is somewhat explanatory in nature - can't be a reason because there was nothing before that is an explanation of sorts? — Devans99
But there can be no reason for why is there something rather than nothing. And an explanation without a reason is no explanation in my book. So no other explanation is possible apart from 'no reason'. — Devans99
You've turned into an equivalent of the antinatalists with your obsessive, daily (if not more frequently) starting of threads that are all essentially arguing the same thing. — Terrapin Station
The questions "why is there something rather than nothing" and "why is this something the way it is" both are equivalent to asking "What is the explanation for the First Cause?". — Devans99
But the First Cause can have no explanation; there is no cause of the first cause; no reason for it. The first cause has to be timeless and thus beyond causation (else we end up in an infinite regress). — Devans99
No they're not. — S
You aren't justified in suggesting that there's a first cause. That's an act of faith. — S
I believe it goes without saying that either you have an effect without a cause or that something existed forever — christian2017
Please say why are they not equivalent. — Devans99
1. The argument in the op: can't get something from nothing so something (IE the first cause) must have existed always. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.