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. — S

If the 'something' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is the first cause then we have the question:

'why is there a first cause rather than nothing?'

There is nothing logically prior to the first cause. So the answer to 'why is there something rather than nothing?' in 'no reason'.

If there is nothing logically prior to the first cause; there is no possibility of any explanation except that given above.

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

If there ever was a state of nothingness in the past; there would be nothing now (because you can't get something from nothing).

So something must have always existed. IE A first cause.

If the 'something' in 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is the first cause... — Devans99

Don't assume that it is.

And stop repeating yourself.

IE A first cause. — Devans99

You must not know what that means, or you're being illogical by saying something akin to that a dog is a cat, up is down, yes is no...

Don't assume that it is. — S

Well the 'something' must logically contain the first cause. The first cause is the explanation for everything else so my substitution is valid.

You must not know what that means. — S

I know precisely what that means.

An uncaused, timeless, first cause.

I have given 3 valid arguments for this position.

Well the 'something' must logically contain the first cause. The first cause is the explanation for everything else so my substitution is valid. — Devans99

No, you haven't reasonably justified the entirely assumed necessity of a first cause. Even if you show that something always existed, that doesn't show that there's a first cause.

I know precisely what that means.

An uncaused, timeless, first cause.

I have given 3 valid arguments for this position. — Devans99

I've shown your argument presented here to be faulty and you haven't resolved the fault.

And it doesn't mean the timeless part. That's just a conclusion reached about a first cause. That it is timeless.

And if you know what it means, then why are you conflating it? It's not logical to say that saying that an animal exists is, in other words, saying that a fluffy cat exists. You're just being illogical.

No, you haven't reasonably justified the entirely assumed necessity of a first cause. — S

If there was no first cause, there would be an infinite regress in time. That is impossible; an infinite regress has no start; the start defines the first event, the first event defines the 2nd, and so on - so we can conclude that none of the events in a infinite regress is defined; an infinite regress is impossible.

Plus I have argued that there is a start of time and that clearly requires a timeless first cause.

Also, something has existed always; the only way to exist always is outside of time; to have no cause and thus be the first cause.

I've shown your argument presented here to be faulty and you haven't resolved the fault. — S

I do not agree that you have shown a fault with any of the three arguments.

They are merely repetitions of earlier arguments of yours likewise shown to be faulty elsewhere. If you have nothing new to add, then be quiet.

If you could kindly point out where these have been shown to be faulty?

I assure you I would not repeat an argument if it had a known fault in it.

Can’t get something from nothing — Devans99

No? Virtual particle pairs? If you're going to dive these waters, you might take the time to understand what lurks in them, lest you make fatal errors. Let's start with your definitions of "something" and "nothing." No gee whiz! either. This topic won't support it, and at the same time be worth anything.

Stephen Hawkings said in his book "a brief history of time" that this notion that there needs to be a first cause (as in a cause before for lack of a better term effect) is illogical. In my opinion the beginning is undefinable and in some ways you could say that a god or gods existed at one time and they all died or you could say they still exist and each person has to decide for themselves what makes the most sense and what will have the best result.

I think you will find that energy is always conserved with quantum fluctuations - nothing persists - if it appears, it disappears.

And if it is not, I can argue that infinite time and quantum fluctuations lead to infinite matter density - impossible - so the existence of quantum fluctuations that create matter requires a start of time.

What is key to my argument is the existence of a timeless first cause and a start of time implies that.

Without a timeless first cause, we have an infinite regress of time which is impossible.

And if it is not, I can argue that infinite time and quantum fluctuations lead to infinite matter density - impossible - so the existence of quantum fluctuations that create matter requires a start of time. — Devans99

I would say as have many, often if indirectly, that you misuse "infinite."

Quantums fluctuations create matter? Who says so? What does it mean to "create matter"?

And, if every proposition you espoused were granted, you would be no closer to any ultimate answer, yes? Or if you think you would, then just go straight to that argument.

I would say as have many, often if indirectly, that you misuse "infinite." — tim wood

How so?

Quantums fluctuations create matter? Who says so? What does it mean to "create matter"? — tim wood

My argument works whether matter is created or not.

And, if every proposition you espoused were granted, you would be no closer to any ultimate answer, yes? Or if you think you would, then just go straight to that argument. — tim wood

Its a very simple argument:

1. There must be a first cause (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/273119)
2. There is nothing logically prior to the first cause
3. So the only possible answer to 'why is there something rather than nothing?' is 'No reason'.

What are you objecting to?

I agree with Devin99 on this. Some things no matter how seemingly illogical will always exist. As long as matter exists there will be measurement (assuming there is a being that can make measurements such as a bacterial organism or a human). Bacteria have sensors and thus make judgements and pseudo measurements on their surroundings.

If you could kindly point out where these have been shown to be faulty? — Devans99

In your previous discussions. You're welcome to review your own past discussions and locate my criticism, but I'm not willing to do that for you, nor am I willing to start over from scratch with you. Why should I? It's your responsibility to develop and address criticisms, and not to merely repeat old criticised arguments as though they're fresh and untouched.

I agree with Devin99 on this. — christian2017

Then you're wrong as well.

Some things no matter how seemingly illogical will always exist. As long as matter exists there will be measurement (assuming there is a being that can make measurements such as a bacterial organism or a human). Bacteria have sensors and thus make judgements and pseudo measurements on their surroundings. — christian2017

That has nothing to do with my criticism of what he has said.

"That has nothing to do with my criticism of what he has said. "

Ok. I was talking to him about something else i guess. I could read through thousands of posts which have pages and pages of information (sometimes bad information) or i could pick and choose who i talk to. I'll go back through this particular topic and see what you said.

The only "reason" this question arises is because the human intellect is an ontological and epistemological prisoner of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and, therefore, is always necessarily compelled to presuppose its unrestricted validity and applicability to all things and circumstances -- which, for all we know, may simply not be the case.

'Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?’

I think it's because we can't affirm 'nothing' and we can't negate 'something'. Therefore logic dictates the presence of something instead of nothing.

Yes. Once it is recognised that the first cause has no cause, it becomes clear the only possible answer is 'no reason'.

Yes. Once it is recognised that the first cause has no cause, it becomes clear the only possible answer is 'no reason'. — Devans99

The only problem is that you don't know there is one. You stubbornly cling to arguments previously shown to be faulty, and you want to act like an amnesiac in this respect.

To exist forever, is dependent on time as it’s support.
Remove our false time concept and only what is now Is!
It is not in the past, or indeed in the future!
What exists is right now, and only now.
To fathom what once was is futile.

The only problem is that you don't know there is one. You stubbornly cling to arguments previously shown to be faulty, and you want to act like an amnesiac in this respect. — S

You always say my arguments have been proved false elsewhere but won't give a link to where.

There must be a first cause: time stretching back forever is an impossible infinite regress. Even if we introduce 'time2' and have that create 'time' we still end up in an infinite regress (time3, time4...). Everything in time is subject to causation, the only way out of this is to have a timeless first cause.

Plus my argument in the OP for a first cause. Plus the start of time implies a timeless first cause. None of these arguments have you addressed here or elsewhere.

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

What if we abandon our common sense notions of time?

What do you have in mind? Time as a linear sequence that supports causation would that change?

You always say my arguments have been proved false elsewhere but won't give a link to where. — Devans99

Don't you agree that it's immoral to sit back and let someone else do that work, when it is your responsibility?

None of these arguments have you addressed here or elsewhere. — Devans99

Don't you think that it's immoral to lie or to make easily avoided mistakes through laziness, unwillingness, or sheer incompetence? The last one might be a tad more forgivable, but I find it hard to believe. I think you're probably just being lazy or otherwise unwilling. You haven't properly checked, and you don't want to. You want to try your hand at manipulating me into doing so.

It's worse, because I'm the type of person who is actually having to put effort into withholding a repetition of my criticism of said-argument here, in the hope of teaching you a lesson about morality. Don't exploit my good will. Do what's right. Learn a valuable lesson. If I end up repeating it here, then we both lose.

What you got?

What about the notion that time has a start point but it can never be reached ... sort of asymptotic singularity style?

Again you come up with no counter arguments... that you have none I will have to assume.

When you say 'can never be reached'? In what sense can we reach the end of time? Do you mean disconnected in spacetime somehow from us?

Again you come up with no counter arguments... that you have none I will have to assume. — Devans99

No, you don't have to assume that. That's being lazy and immoral. The alternative would be to do what's right and check properly, and it would be a bonus if you did so and then learnt a valuable lesson from it.

Again, it is your responsibility to put the effort into listening to criticism, and taking it into account with respect to your argument. It is irresponsible to do what you're doing.

It looks like Devans99 was banned for some reason, but I think he was really on to something here. I agree with his conclusion, but he may be wrong about the notion that something can not come from nothing. Some of the newest experiments in quantum physics seem to indicate that something does come from nothing. However, we simply may not be detecting everything that may have caused the particle to appear from nothing. In any event, we don't have enough evidence to state with any certainty that something from nothing is impossible.

Although this adds an extra element to the equation, the conclusion would still be the same:
1. A First Cause existed
2. The First Cause either always existed or emerged from nothing.
3. Either way, there was "No Reason or Purpose" for the First Cause or First Thing to exist.

This has a profound effect on the notion of the purpose of the universe as a whole. The result is that no absolute purpose can exist, and purposes imagined by thinking beings now are legitimate.