Are there any reason for the creation of the universe?

Are there any reasons for the creation of the universe? Why is there something, instead of nothing?

It’s with no doubt an undeniable old question, which philosophers have thought a lot about. It’s a question which only can have one reason, one answer, and it’s a theological question. NOT a question for natural science.
But it s a strange question, normally – in the daily life and in natural science, you don’t wonder about the world that exists, that there even is something, instead of nothing. Trying to describe why the world is spinning, it’s simply a pseudo philosophical problem

What do you think about theese questions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, the TNR font at this size is difficult to read with all of the stylistic flares.

Second, why is it a theological question? Theology deals with the unseen and unknowable, not reality.

As for why there is something rather than nothing, ???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

universe was created because that is the only thing that could be created

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The universe - or rather, existence - came about by necessity and by blind processes rooted in such. If you'd care for me to elaborate beyond that, I'd be happy to do so.

 

I would say its not a question which can be anwsered by natural science, because there simply is no anwser for it. The answer depends on belief and what you think.

 

If the answer depends on belief and what one thinks, then there is no reason to take any belief on it whatsoever, no?

 

Why do you think the universe was created as opposed to growing, or existing forever in one form or another?

What is the difference between something and nothing?

 

then it begs the q what created the blind processes, or the substances that the blind processes are working with

 

spidergoat

still doesn't explain why things are initialized

send me all your money and develop a direct understanding of this question

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

First, if there is no answer for it, then why did you ask the question?
Second, if the answer depends on one's belief (take note of your contradiction here...), then you're stuck in solipsism.

 

No it doesn't.
The question-begging only obtains if you apply an anthropomorphisize the system. Simply because a process occurs, this doesn't entail a beginning (or causative agent) to the process.

Processes are, for the most part, emergent.

 

It is not clear that there was any initialization, or that something is other than what we think of as nothing (space). It is not clear that the substance and process are separate. The process could be a property of the substance.

 

the only example of processes that don't have causes are axiomatic - in otherwords they innvolve an element of mystery - like for instance we don't know how gravity operates but we know it does - thus axioms are plagued by the question what causes them - einstein iniated the endeavour to address this problem with his unified field theory (determining the scientific axiom that all axioms hinge on)...... so far no progress

as for using the anthropomorphic argument the mere resemblance between God and men proves nothing since one could just as easily claim, as Bible does, that men are made in the image of God, or the gods. The resemblance then 'proves' the opposite point.

 

then why talk of evolution if there is an eternal absence of initialization

 

This is contradictory. Gravity has yet to be fully understood, as you point out. There is therefore, no axiom involved.

Furthermore, the implication that understood processes are easily seen to be caused is erroneous. Causation, like gravity, has yet to be understood. Of course, we can inductively demonstrate a history of seeming causation which would enjoy a certain power of prediction, but this still fails to suffice as a definition of causation.

You seem to be misunderstanding anthropomorphosize. I specifically made no mention of a god; I was merely pointing out that it is you who feels the need for there to be a cause to every process. This feeling is a human one, having no necessity whatsoever. It is merely a mental bias.

 

There are causes, but there may not be an initial cause for everything (what caused the initial cause?). Evolution could have a first cause, because it is a subset of "everything". When we talk about evolution, we are only talking about life after it started.

 

glaucon

so in other words anytime a scientist wants to use gravity in their equations they must measure or do they just use 6.67259 x 10 (-11) N m(2) kg (-2)??

Causation is not understood?? This seems like a strange claim to make so perhaps you can elaborate a little

Its difficult to understand on what basis you advocate that processes don't have causes - all you have ascertained is that humans have a tendency to look for causes - taking the antithesis of that (which is also a mental bias) doesn't automatically qualify for something more truthful - the premises for your statement can still be used to prove the opposite

 

Both are the same of course. Standard Newtonian calculations are part of a system designed to approximate reality. Because, as we know, we do not yet fully understand gravity.

None needed. Causation has eluded all rigorous attempts at systematization, particularly due to Hume, and continues to do so today.

Not sure where you studied logic, but you've got it wrong.
I never advocated that processes don't have causes; I simply pointed out that it's poor epistemology to assume that there must be causes. Causation is a mental affectation, until proved otherwise. This does not deny the possibility that causation might obtain.

 

Lightgigantic:

If it would please you, I might provide you with a system of metaphysics that quite wraps up the entire foundation for existence without recourse to a personal God and with a proof of eternity, infinity, and various other things.

 

Glaucon:

Check out my argument contra-Hume and contra-Kant for causality as a physical thing:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50875&highlight=argument causality