Why is there something instead of nothing?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice conversation between people of different beliefs, including your patron saint Richard Dawkins.... on 'why is there something instead of nothing?'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcellKvotyI


Cheers.

Sriram

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice conversation between people of different beliefs, including your patron saint Richard Dawkins.... on 'why is there something instead of nothing?'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcellKvotyI


Cheers.

Sriram

When you say "your patron saint Richard Dawkins", I assume you are talking about Vlad. He isn't anybody else's patron saint.

Anyway, interesting looking discussion.

[jeremyp]

I think the guy in the white suit is interesting. He's pretty eloquent but his ideas are so simplistic he'd get torn to shreds on this forum consisting of fairly ordinary people.

[Alan Burns]

Looking at the comments I am amazed at how many people are taken in by Dawkins' blinkered arguments, cherry picking those which support his desired objective.

[Gordon]

Looking at the comments I am amazed at how many people are taken in by Dawkins' blinkered arguments, cherry picking those which support his desired objective.

Excuse me - I just have to clear up the mess caused by my irony meter exploding.

[Gordon]

Watched it - if Swinburne is typical of 'Christian thought', which is an oxymoron based on his contribution in this discussion, then Christianity is truly fucked. He maybe needs to grow up and move on from fairy stories.

He gave me laugh though, so I'll give him credit for that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice conversation between people of different beliefs, including your patron saint Richard Dawkins.... on 'why is there something instead of nothing?'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcellKvotyI


Cheers.

Sriram

I'm not sure that it a relevant (or at least an appropriate) question as it biases towards the notion of there being some kind of purpose, begged in the use of 'why'. It also succumbs to confirmation bias on the basis that the very notion that there is something rather than nothing creates an imbalance between the two options - effectively we couldn't be having the discussion were there to have been nothing rather than something.

The relevant question is 'how' is there something instead of nothing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice conversation between people of different beliefs, including your patron saint Richard Dawkins.... on 'why is there something instead of nothing?'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcellKvotyI


Cheers.

Sriram

Started watching this, but from its outset it is achingly biased. So a discussion about cosmic existence involves four people - three are there to represent three major religions ... everything else is represented by a biologist. Where are the astronomers, the theoretical physicists etc etc.

And actually is seems more to be a discussion about biological life, not about something vs nothing at all (here is the clue - not living things are just as much 'something' as living things).

Now imagine were there to be the same discussion (if that were possible) amongst some living things in a distant part of the universe, or amongst living things on earth millions of years ago. Would the discussion of biology remain relevant - likely it would. Would a discussion around theoretical physics/cosmology remain relevant - absolutely it would. Would the discussion around human-based religions that have been around on one planet for a few thousand years remain relevant - absolutely not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice conversation between people of different beliefs, including your patron saint Richard Dawkins.... on 'why is there something instead of nothing?'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcellKvotyI


Cheers.

Sriram

Watched more now and this just drifts into a discussion of human morality - of good vs evil. This is a peculiarly narrow aspect of 'something v nothing'. One that has no relevance to non living existence, no relevance to most living entities and is really (as discussed in the piece) merely something about the development and nature of human societies and cultures. Now I don't deny this to be important to one species, on one planet and in the blink of an eye in cosmic terms - but is is effectively completely irrelevant to an actual discussion of 'something v nothing' outside the narrowest of narrow anthropocentric thinking.

[Nearly Sane]

Why do birds suddenly appear everytime he is near. Just like Vlad, they long to be close to Dick.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Where are the astronomers, the theoretical physicists etc etc.

Actually a logician would be fine. As Prof Brian Cox says in response to this question: "Why assume that nothing is less likely than something?"

[SteveH]

Looking at the comments I am amazed at how many people are taken in by Dawkins' blinkered arguments, cherry picking those which support his desired objective.

RD is a brilliant expositor of zoology and evolution, on which he is a first-rank expert, but annoyingly blinkered and rigid on philosophy and theology, on which he is no more authoritative than any intelligent layman.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Looking at the comments I am amazed at how many people are taken in by Dawkins' blinkered arguments, cherry picking those which support his desired objective.

Presumably you'll be back soon with an example of one such RD's "blinkered arguments" then right? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi SteveH,

...annoyingly blinkered and rigid on philosophy and theology...

Just out of interest, where do you think he's "annoyingly blinkered and rigid on philosophy and theology"?

[Stranger]

Here is a nice conversation between people of different beliefs, including your patron saint Richard Dawkins.... on 'why is there something instead of nothing?'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcellKvotyI

Watched the opening statements from all the participants but they were grindingly dull.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Perhaps more to the point, why is nobody talking about that question?

Dawkins didn't really say anything new, just that evolution explained the complexity and apparent design of life but at least he had the sense to recognise that he wasn't really qualified to talk about physics or cosmology which might be more relevant. He mentioned a multiverse but that doesn't answer the question either.

Was Richard Swinburne trying to be a dim and dull as he could? Droned on and on for ten minutes, making assumption after assumption and assertion after assertions. Didn't seem to get that a god would be something so doesn't answer the question.

Silvia Jonas wasn't much better. She doesn't seem to understand that mathematics isn't a science and apparently thought assuming a purpose for existence might answer the question. What!!? You can't have a purpose without something existing, so there is obviously no answer there. Didn't even seem to get that a purpose for existence was a religious idea either.

Jessica Frazier probably get closest to addressing the question but it's "who knows?", which is actually quite accurate. Unfortunately then collapsed into the daftness of the argument from contingency.

All of them seem stuck in the pre 20th century view of time and causality, which really isn't great when you're supposed to be thinking about deep questions.

Don't think I'll waste another hour on it.

[Stranger]

...including your patron saint Richard Dawkins....

Why on earth is it that so many theists think that Dawkins is somebody special for atheists/atheism? It's bizarre.

[Stranger]

Looking at the comments I am amazed at how many people are taken in by Dawkins' blinkered arguments, cherry picking those which support his desired objective.

Wow. From the guy who endlessly spouts illogical, unevidenced drivel, refuses engage with any counterarguments, and basically ignores every fact and logical argument that undermines him.

How you can post something like this (apparently) in all seriousness, is quite beyond me. Talk about pots and kettles.

[Sriram]

Richard Dawkins interviewed by Piers Morgan.... on evolution, gender, feminism etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=505UazMNgLg

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Presumably you'll be back soon with an example of one such RD's "blinkered arguments" then right?

Dawkins says he only accepts evidence which can be physically measured.
Can you measure a thought, or a belief?
He needs to come to terms with a reality which goes far beyond what we can perceive with our physical senses.

[Gordon]

Dawkins says he only accepts evidence which can be physically measured.
Can you measure a thought, or a belief?
He needs to come to terms with a reality which goes far beyond what we can perceive with our physical senses.

If you can't perceive it with your physical senses then on what basis can you demonstrate this other 'reality'?

[Sriram]

If you can't perceive it with your physical senses then on what basis can you demonstrate this other 'reality'?

Remember the stubborn blind man problem?! It is the same here. The other reality cannot be demonstrated. It has to be experienced and understood through insight. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Dawkins says he only accepts evidence which can be physically measured.

I'm not sure that he does (do you have a citation?) but in any case having some method to distinguish a claim of evidence from dumb guessing seems sensible to me. Doesn't it to you?

Can you measure a thought, or a belief?

No idea, but it's irrelevant. A thought or a belief is subjective. If you want to make a claim of evidence, then you need a method to demonstrate the objective.

That's your problem – you cannot just assert a subjective belief to be an objective fact.   

He needs to come to terms with a reality which goes far beyond what we can perceive with our physical senses.

He no doubt has already "come to terms with" the likelihood that there's a lot more to reality than we can perceive. Your mistake though is to claim to know more about what that reality is without any method of verification. What you actually have is dumb guessing, but nothing more.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Remember the stubborn blind man problem?!

It's not a problem - it's just bad reasoning. Your blind man doesn't know that light exists - he's just made a dumb guess and got lucky. You could equally have posited a blind man who thought there were fairies dancing at the end of his garden.

I've corrected you on this mistake several times before, but because you always run away rather than address the reasoning that falsifies you you've learnt nothing.

It is the same here. The other reality cannot be demonstrated.

Then how do you know it's real and not imagined?

It has to be experienced and understood through insight.

It's not "understood" at all though - "it" is just a subjective belief with no path to objective fact.

Once again your poor reasoning and refusal to address your mistakes when they're explained to you has let you down here.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure that it a relevant (or at least an appropriate) question as it biases towards the notion of there being some kind of purpose, begged in the use of 'why'. It also succumbs to confirmation bias on the basis that the very notion that there is something rather than nothing creates an imbalance between the two options - effectively we couldn't be having the discussion were there to have been nothing rather than something.

The relevant question is 'how' is there something instead of nothing.

"why" can be used in several ways. It doesn't have to imply purpose.

"Why did my car break down?"

"Why does the Sun appear to move across the sky?"

"Why do metals conduct electricity?"

"Why is there such a diverse range of living things in the World?"

None of these questions imply purpose.

[jeremyp]

RD is a brilliant expositor of zoology and evolution, on which he is a first-rank expert, but annoyingly blinkered and rigid on philosophy and theology, on which he is no more authoritative than any intelligent layman.

Since theology is built on an assumption that has not been shown to be true, we can dismiss it.

The philosophy guy they did have was rubbish. You don't need to be a philosopher to tear his arguments to shreds.