So you basically conflate "cause" and "reason"? The problem is that it still seems to make sense to ask why there is something rather than nothing if you think that there's an explanation, even if you think that there's no cause, and something has permanently existed. It seems to remain an open question.

I think the reason for something must lie temporally prior to the something.

The thing that existed permanently must be timeless so beyond causation - there can be no prior - so no reason.

I think the reason for something must lie temporally prior to the something.

The thing that existed permanently must be timeless so beyond causation - there can be no prior - so no reason. — Devans99

You mean cause.

I think in this usage 'cause' and 'reason' are identical:

- is there a reason something existed
- is there a cause of something

Is asking the same question.

I think in this usage 'cause' and 'reason' are identical:

- is there a reason something existed
- is there a cause of something

Is asking the same question. — Devans99

Exactly, that was my analysis. Now address the problem I raised.

I feel I did - if there is nothing 'prior' to something then something has no cause/reason.

I feel I did - if there is nothing 'prior' to something then something has no cause/reason. — Devans99

Well you didn't. I understand what you're doing. You just affirmed my analysis. The problem is that what you mean isn't always or necessarily what other people mean, so what you're doing here is actually trivial.

I do not follow your analysis.

The reason something existed must preexist the something. If preexistence is not possible, there can be no reason. So why is there something rather than nothing? No reason.

4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’. — Devans99

All that really says is: "So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’, so long as you abide by my very narrow interpretation of what the question is asking".

:clap:

But I believe the argument shows that there can be no other answer possible.

The 'why' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' implies a state of existence prior to the 'something' but there is no such state so no other answer will ever be forthcoming.

But I believe the argument shows that there can be no other answer possible. — Devans99

Well that's dumb, because there is if you go by a different interpretation.

Can you describe your interpretation of the question?

Can you describe your interpretation of the question? — Devans99

It can be interpreted in a number of ways. I just gave you a plausible alternative interpretation where "reason" means "explanation".

OK the definition of explanation is:

1. a statement or account that makes something clear.
2. a reason or justification given for an action or belief.

In the case of [2], the reason or justification must temporally precede the action or belief - so my argument holds.

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?

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

It's not right to say that there can't be an explanation for why things are as they are, in the sense that there's something rather than nothing, just because they've always been this way. I can still ask why that is so, which is to seek an explanation.

I don't think there is necessarily an explanation which we know of, or which works as a proper explanation, but I still disagree with your argument.

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'.

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

How do you know that there can be no explanation, given that your answer only works if we abide by your narrow interpretation, which we needn't do? That there is no cause is not necessarily that there is no explanation, so your argument fails. Your book isn't the only book. You still don't seem to understand that what you're doing is trivial in the bigger picture. You should actually listen to how other people interpret the question and take that into consideration. Otherwise, who do you think you're arguing against?

That there is no cause is not necessarily that there is no explanation, so your argument fails — S

You can't have an explanation for a phenomena which fails to account for its cause.

You can't have an explanation for a phenomena which fails to account for its cause. — Devans99

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

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.

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

If you're having obsession problems I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems but a Devans ain't one.

Imagine two balls. You just got two things out of nothing. Now imagine one of the balls is material, and the other antimaterial. These two balls should erase each other from existence, but what if one falls in a black hole? Then the other would be "condemned" to exist.

Also, consider a character in a play; the author might have imagined its destiny, and written its past accordingly to a path into that destiny. So the cause of something might be its destiny.

Of course, the destiny of all things is death. Perhaps this is the difference between death and nothingness: those who die have existed.

Imagine two balls. — Louco

:snicker:

Does the question "why is there something rather than nothing" accurately refelect the emotions and feelings of people who ask it?

Are they not really asking "why is this something the way it is"? Are they not really ranting about arbitrariness?

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?".

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).

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

No they're not.

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

You aren't justified in suggesting that there's a first cause. That's an act of faith.

No they're not. — S

Please say why are they not equivalent.

You aren't justified in suggesting that there's a first cause. That's an act of faith. — S

There are different ways to show there is a first cause:

1. The argument in the op: can't get something from nothing so something (IE the first cause) must have existed always.

2. If you think about time stretching back; it forms an infinite regress. Maybe if we had another time, say time2 and that created time? Then we'd need a time3. So time always results in an infinite regress. The only way out of this infinite regress is something timeless. IE a timeless first cause.

3. I believe time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1) so that also requires a timeless first cause

In the book "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings he illustrates a story about how a women told a professor that the universe is sitting on top of a stack of infinite turtles. Most people would say this is ridicoulous but Stephen Hawkings correctly says that the very nature of existence requires something to exist forever even if its just a set of laws or dare i say it energies. I believe it goes without saying that either you have an effect without a cause or that something existed forever. Some say that this is not the first universe but universes come in and out of existence over long periods of time. A great video to watch it "10 dimensions explained" on youtube.

I believe it goes without saying that either you have an effect without a cause or that something existed forever — christian2017

I have an argument that rules out the 2nd:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

So I think therefore there must be an effect without a cause; something beyond causality, IE beyond time that is the first cause of everything.

Please say why are they not equivalent. — Devans99

Because they mean different things. If I were to say that, "I'm going home", and, "I'm going fishing", are equivalent, then I'd be talking rubbish.

1. The argument in the op: can't get something from nothing so something (IE the first cause) must have existed always. — Devans99

No, that's not "i.e. the first cause". That's completely unreasonable.