Unanswerable Questions... Or Incoherent Questions?

[AndrewTomlinson]

One of the claims that keeps cropping up in science/religion debates is that there are questions that science simply cannot answer. This claim is actually true. But why can't science provide these answers? Is it because other methods of looking at life are necessary... or because the questions themselves are incoherent? I'll provide an example that came to mind recently.

 

One of these big questions is, of course: "Where do we go after we die? What happens to our souls?" Taken at face value, this might be mistaken for a reasonable inquiry. Let me ask a similar question by way of illustration. "After old dollar bills are incinerated by the Federal Reserve, who owns the money? Where do they spend it?"

 

Currency has monetary value only so long as it maintains its form. Ashes that used to be money no longer have value. By the same token, a living person has an identity, or "soul" if you must, only so long as they remain alive. Their memories, personality, and thoughts are encoded within their living brain. When they die, the brain stops functioning and decomposes.

 

Where does the dollar's monetary value go? Nowhere. It ceases to be. Where do we go? I'll let you answer that one.

[florduh]

Welcome, Andrew!

 

What happens after we die? Lots of stuff, but we won't know about it. We're dead.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Andrew, good question.  I am wondering, on reflection, whether you are actually pointing to two kinds of questions: incoherent questions and pseudo-questions.

 

A pseudo-question is a question, the answer to which cannot, in principle, be found under any methodology accessible--in principle-- to everyone.

 

Your question, what happens to the soul after we die, is an example.

 

On the other hand, I am wondering whether your category, incoherent question, is different, and whether your question about burned bills falls there and not under pseudo-question.  Here is my thinking about an incoherent question.  I haven't done any research!

 

A question presupposes a statement.  "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes at least two true statements, that you have a wife and that you have been beating her.  "Is the king of France bald?" presupposes that there is a king of France and that he is bald.

 

We can rewrite these presuppositions so that in some cases, we can expose them as in fact false. 

E.g. "there is an X such that X is a bald man and X is king of France."  This statement is false, although it may have been true centuries ago for some value of X (Charles the Bald?).  Right now, "king of France" is distributed over no value of X.

 

You could do something similar with the wife beating question.

 

In the two examples above, the question is not incoherent, because it rests on a set of presupposed premises, at least one of which is in fact false. 

 

With the burned bill question, on the other hand, we get a presupposition that involves, not simply a false premise, but a direct violation of the law of non-contradiction. 

 

Start from the premise, "if you spend a bank note, the bank note exists."  Then go on to:

"there is at least one X such that X is a bank note and X has been burned up." 

You'd have to add, "if X has been burned up, X does not exist."

When we try to distribute these propositions over the same value of X, we get "there is an X such that X is a bank note" and "it is not the case that there is an X such that X is a bank note."

 

I think most of the questions posed by religionists are pseudo-questions, not incoherent questions, because their flaw is not that they violate axioms of thought. It is rather that their presuppositional set includes propositions that masquerade as true but actually cannot, in principle, be determined as true or false by any methodology universally accessible.

 

E.g. "bald king of France": problem rests on a matter of fact

"married bachelor": problem is linguistic, rests on attempt to unite two mutually exclusive terms, annihilates discourse

 

One of my favorites from medieval philosophy/theology is the question, can the second person of the Trinity be incarnated as a cucumber?  I don't think that "there is an X such that X is the second person of the trinity and X has been incarnated as a cucumber" involves a denial of the law of non-contradiction.  For starters, it's because "second person of the Trinity" is poorly-enough defined that we can't establish whether the above entails a self-contradiction.

 

I'm interested in what you think of my stab at replying to your question - which is neither incoherent nor pseudo!

[disillusioned]

Hey Andrew.

 

I like the example you give. It's very illustrative of the fact that not all questions which can be formed in natural language are actually meaningful. Having said that, I still think we do need to be careful not to triumph science as the only possible mode of inquiry.

 

There are questions which science cannot answer. And some such questions are valid and meaningful. For example, science cannot answer the question of whether or not the continuum hypothesis is correct. This is because the continuum hypothesis is not an empirical statement. (For reference: the continuum hypothesis states that there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. More information here.) As it turns out, the continuum hypothesis is also not answerable under ZFC set theory. Hence, it may either be assumed or rejected without causing contradiction. Thus, it may be said to be unanswerable (at least in a certain system), but it is not incoherent. Of course this does not entail that all questions which cannot be answered by science are meaningful. As you point out, some questions truly may be said to be incoherent. I think that the challenge of differentiating between those questions which are meaningful and those questions which are not is not an insignificant one.

[AndrewTomlinson]

Hi Andrew, good question.  I am wondering, on reflection, whether you are actually pointing to two kinds of questions: incoherent questions and pseudo-questions.

 

A pseudo-question is a question, the answer to which cannot, in principle, be found under any methodology accessible--in principle-- to everyone.

 

Your question, what happens to the soul after we die, is an example.

 

On the other hand, I am wondering whether your category, incoherent question, is different, and whether your question about burned bills falls there and not under pseudo-question.  Here is my thinking about an incoherent question.  I haven't done any research!

 

A question presupposes a statement.  "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes at least two true statements, that you have a wife and that you have been beating her.  "Is the king of France bald?" presupposes that there is a king of France and that he is bald.

 

We can rewrite these presuppositions so that in some cases, we can expose them as in fact false. 

E.g. "there is an X such that X is a bald man and X is king of France."  This statement is false, although it may have been true centuries ago for some value of X (Charles the Bald?).  Right now, "king of France" is distributed over no value of X.

 

You could do something similar with the wife beating question.

 

In the two examples above, the question is not incoherent, because it rests on a set of presupposed premises, at least one of which is in fact false. 

 

With the burned bill question, on the other hand, we get a presupposition that involves, not simply a false premise, but a direct violation of the law of non-contradiction. 

 

Start from the premise, "if you spend a bank note, the bank note exists."  Then go on to:

"there is at least one X such that X is a bank note and X has been burned up." 

You'd have to add, "if X has been burned up, X does not exist."

When we try to distribute these propositions over the same value of X, we get "there is an X such that X is a bank note" and "it is not the case that there is an X such that X is a bank note."

 

I think most of the questions posed by religionists are pseudo-questions, not incoherent questions, because their flaw is not that they violate axioms of thought. It is rather that their presuppositional set includes propositions that masquerade as true but actually cannot, in principle, be determined as true or false by any methodology universally accessible.

 

E.g. "bald king of France": problem rests on a matter of fact

"married bachelor": problem is linguistic, rests on attempt to unite two mutually exclusive terms, annihilates discourse

 

One of my favorites from medieval philosophy/theology is the question, can the second person of the Trinity be incarnated as a cucumber?  I don't think that "there is an X such that X is the second person of the trinity and X has been incarnated as a cucumber" involves a denial of the law of non-contradiction.  For starters, it's because "second person of the Trinity" is poorly-enough defined that we can't establish whether the above entails a self-contradiction.

 

I'm interested in what you think of my stab at replying to your question - which is neither incoherent nor pseudo!

Your king of France question confuses me somewhat, since it doesn't seem to presuppose baldness. If it had read: "Is the king of France still bald?" then I could see it presupposing that he (or a previous king, perhaps) had been bald.

 

At any rate, I find that many of religion's questions use words that have no clear definition, such that the topic cannot be rationally approached - the "soul" being my flagship example. I conceive of this as being the same as someone's identity, a combination of their memories, personality, and thoughts. If so, then it is adequately explained by neuroscience and I can say with confidence that the soul ceases to exist at the point of total brain death.

 

On the other hand, if that's not what the soul is supposed to be... then what is it? Lacking a proper definition for the one word, the meaning of the question cannot be discerned. This would render it incoherent, yes?

[disillusioned]

 

One of my favorites from medieval philosophy/theology is the question, can the second person of the Trinity be incarnated as a cucumber?  I don't think that "there is an X such that X is the second person of the trinity and X has been incarnated as a cucumber" involves a denial of the law of non-contradiction.  For starters, it's because "second person of the Trinity" is poorly-enough defined that we can't establish whether the above entails a self-contradiction.

 

I'm wondering whether the fact that "second person of the Trinity" is not well-defined might render the question incoherent. If we don't understand what "second person of the Trinity" means, then it seems to me that it may or may not be the case that this question violates non-contradiction: we simply don't know. I think this is similar to what Andrew says above about the soul.

[Fweethawt]

They boast that there are questions that Science can't answer. In my opinion, the simple wording of that phrase is false to begin with. Its not that science "can't answer" these questions as much as it is either:

 

A - Science CAN answer the questions but theists reject the conclusions because they don't like the outcome.

 

or,

 

B - Science WON'T "answer" these questions with a fabricated conclusion which is exactly what the theists consider to be an actual "answer" 99.999999% of the time.

 

 

So, basically, it is pure ignorance of the scientific method that draws one to the conclusion that the boast is legit.

[AndrewTomlinson]

I was hoping I could edit my previous post, but now I cannot find the button.

 

Hey Andrew.

 

I like the example you give. It's very illustrative of the fact that not all questions which can be formed in natural language are actually meaningful. Having said that, I still think we do need to be careful not to triumph science as the only possible mode of inquiry.

 

There are questions which science cannot answer. And some such questions are valid and meaningful. For example, science cannot answer the question of whether or not the continuum hypothesis is correct. This is because the continuum hypothesis is not an empirical statement. (For reference: the continuum hypothesis states that there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. More information here.) As it turns out, the continuum hypothesis is also not answerable under ZFC set theory. Hence, it may either be assumed or rejected without causing contradiction. Thus, it may be said to be unanswerable (at least in a certain system), but it is not incoherent. Of course this does not entail that all questions which cannot be answered by science are meaningful. As you point out, some questions truly may be said to be incoherent. I think that the challenge of differentiating between those questions which are meaningful and those questions which are not is not an insignificant one.

Thank you for the interesting link. I agree that the scientific method isn't the "end-all-be-all" of rational inquiry. Although I hope it will grow and evolve. Science has already lead us to theories that don't make intuitive sense, but I find it very difficult to contemplate any other method producing reliable theories. Perhaps time will tell.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Your king of France question confuses me somewhat, since it doesn't seem to presuppose baldness. If it had read: "Is the king of France still bald?" then I could see it presupposing that he (or a previous king, perhaps) had been bald.

 

 

 

"The (present) king of France is bald" is a proposition that Bertrand Russell discusses in his famous paper On Denoting.  Some philosophers would want to say that this proposition has no meaning, since there is no present king of France.  Russell said it's simpler. He used this statement in developing his predicate logic, according to which you can resolve that statement into another form under which it is not meaningless but simply false.  That is, there is no X, such that X is the king of France now and X is bald.  The predicates are not distributed over the same variable.

[Joshpantera]

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent? 

[♦ ficino ♦]

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent? 

Um... how about this as an answer?  Yes, it's incoherent, because existence is not clearly defined.

[AndrewTomlinson]

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent?

If existence is the universe, then we have a very specific timeline indicating when it began. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted due to the overwhelming evidence in support of it. As to why there is something rather than nothing... that one is in the works, but science is likely to explain it soon. One potential explanation is that "nothing" is an unstable state which, as a result of natural processes, is likely to spontaneously become "something". In our case, an entire universe which a net energy of 0.

 

So that may not be nearly so unanswerable.

[Joshpantera]

 

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent?

If existence is the universe, then we have a very specific timeline indicating when it began. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted due to the overwhelming evidence in support of it. As to why there is something rather than nothing... that one is in the works, but science is likely to explain it soon. One potential explanation is that "nothing" is an unstable state which, as a result of natural processes, is likely to spontaneously become "something". In our case, an entire universe which a net energy of 0.

 

So that may not be nearly so unanswerable.

 

 

Did an unstable state exist? If yes, then it's an extension of existence. I mean it in the broad sense of something, somehow, somewhere existing in some way. If nothingness exists or ever existed, then granted it's an aspect of existence. Is that better defined?

 

Now to question it again. 

 

- Why did an unstable state 'exist' before natural processes initiated an expanding universe?

 

- Not how did a pre-BB unstable state exist, why did it exist in the first place? 

 

Do you assume answering why anything exists is within the range of science to answer? 

 

Are the questions any more incoherent with this definition added? 

[AndrewTomlinson]

 

 

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent?

If existence is the universe, then we have a very specific timeline indicating when it began. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted due to the overwhelming evidence in support of it. As to why there is something rather than nothing... that one is in the works, but science is likely to explain it soon. One potential explanation is that "nothing" is an unstable state which, as a result of natural processes, is likely to spontaneously become "something". In our case, an entire universe which a net energy of 0.

 

So that may not be nearly so unanswerable.

 

 

Did an unstable state exist? If yes, then it's an extension of existence. I mean it in the broad sense of something, somehow, somewhere existing in some way. If nothingness exists or ever existed, then granted it's an aspect of existence. Is that better defined?

 

Now to question it again. 

 

- Why did an unstable state 'exist' before natural processes initiated an expanding universe?

 

- Not how did a pre-BB unstable state exist, why did it exist in the first place? 

 

Do you assume answering why anything exists is within the range of science to answer? 

 

Are the questions any more incoherent with this definition added? 

 

 

If the definition of nothing is always going to be "less than the nothing that you think nothing is", then it's actually a nonsense concept. It's entirely possible that a proper "nothing" isn't a real thought at all, but an imaginary ideal. Furthermore, I do think that "why" is a bad question. It presupposes a reason or purpose, or can at least be interpreted to do so. "How" is preferred for that reason, since everything we observe has a cause.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

 

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent?

If existence is the universe, then we have a very specific timeline indicating when it began. The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted due to the overwhelming evidence in support of it. As to why there is something rather than nothing... that one is in the works, but science is likely to explain it soon. One potential explanation is that "nothing" is an unstable state which, as a result of natural processes, is likely to spontaneously become "something". In our case, an entire universe which a net energy of 0.

 

So that may not be nearly so unanswerable.

 

 

Did an unstable state exist? If yes, then it's an extension of existence. I mean it in the broad sense of something, somehow, somewhere existing in some way. If nothingness exists or ever existed, then granted it's an aspect of existence. Is that better defined?

 

Now to question it again. 

 

- Why did an unstable state 'exist' before natural processes initiated an expanding universe?

 

- Not how did a pre-BB unstable state exist, why did it exist in the first place? 

 

Do you assume answering why anything exists is within the range of science to answer? 

 

Are the questions any more incoherent with this definition added? 

 

 

If the definition of nothing is always going to be "less than the nothing that you think nothing is", then it's actually a nonsense concept. It's entirely possible that a proper "nothing" isn't a real thought at all, but an imaginary ideal. Furthermore, I do think that "why" is a bad question. It presupposes a reason or purpose, or can at least be interpreted to do so. "How" is preferred for that reason, since everything we observe has a cause.

 

Bingo! 

 

I'm just toying around with the limits of both science and religion because "why" is essentially an unanswerable question.

 

To a theist, why does an eternal God exist in the first place? Doesn't have a beginning. It's beyond meaning or purpose. They'd have to say that it just exists, it just is. 

 

With natural existence it's the same. As Sagan pointed out, why not skip a step and just assume the natural cosmos always existed? Whether eternal God or eternal natural cosmos external to our expanding universe (multiverse for instance) something always existed in order to give rise to something else. When facing where did the universe come from, pre-BB, we see a variety of natural explanations like the multiverse and so on. Logically, finding a point where nothing existed at all doesn't seem very rational, whether taking the science or religion path. Before "let there be light" God existed, for theists, and for non-theists the natural cosmos had to have always existed in some form or another.

 

Neither can actually touch on the question of why any thing even exists to begin with. It's infinitely out of range...

[pantheory]

One of the claims that keeps cropping up in science/religion debates is that there are questions that science simply cannot answer. This claim is actually true. But why can't science provide these answers? Is it because other methods of looking at life are necessary... or because the questions themselves are incoherent? I'll provide an example that came to mind recently.

 

 

Your quote above IMO needs a minor revision. It should instead read " there are questions that present science theory simply cannot answer."

 

As you imply there are very few scientists that would agree with this above statement in quotes, but maybe half would disagree with your original statement above about science in general not being able to answer such questions. This statement is simply not true in the opinion of many if not most scientists.

 

Questions concerning life relate to the science of biology

 

One of these big questions is, of course: "Where do we go after we die? What happens to our souls?" Taken at face value, this might be mistaken for a reasonable inquiry. Let me ask a similar question by way of illustration. "After old dollar bills are incinerated by the Federal Reserve, who owns the money? Where do they spend it?"

 

Currency has monetary value only so long as it maintains its form. Ashes that used to be money no longer have value. By the same token, a living person has an identity, or "soul" if you must, only so long as they remain alive. Their memories, personality, and thoughts are encoded within their living brain. When they die, the brain stops functioning and decomposes.

 

Where does the dollar's monetary value go? Nowhere. It ceases to be. Where do we go? I'll let you answer that one.

 

 

As to you analogy: The federal reserve has policies whereby when a dollar is burned another new dollar is put in circulation to replace it. The amount of currency in circulation is regulated so that sometimes new money is added into circulation while at other times money is withdrawn from circulation without replacement. 

 

The dollar's value never ceased to exist on the books and its replacement remains in circulation until it too will be replaced.

 

As to an identity, we all have one given to us by our parents or society. As to a soul, this is simply a religious concept with no accepted scientific evidence or basis for its existence. A soul is a religious belief and/or concept. 

[pantheory]

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent? 

 

This is not an unanswerable question in science IMO, it is unanswerable based upon present-day definitions and science theory. It is one of the trickiest answers to understand, and was the question presented by Stephen Hawking at the end of his most popular book "A brief History of Time."  A number of relatively simple hypothesis can be presented to explain the possibilities involved but none are necessarily consistent with present-day theory of cosmology or cosmogony.  I would go into it if you or anyone else were interesting in the alternative possibilities to present-day theory concerning this question.

[disillusioned]

This is not an unanswerable question in science IMO, it is unanswerable based upon present-day definitions and science theory. It is one of the trickiest answers to understand, and was the question presented by Stephen Hawking at the end of his most popular book "A brief History of Time."  A number of relatively simple hypothesis can be presented to explain the possibilities involved but none are necessarily consistent with present-day theory of cosmology or cosmogony.  I would go into it if you or anyone else were interesting in the alternative possibilities to present-day theory concerning this question.

Oh goody.

[Joshpantera]

 

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent? 

 

This is not an unanswerable question in science IMO, it is unanswerable based upon present-day definitions and science theory. It is one of the trickiest answers to understand, and was the question presented by Stephen Hawking at the end of his most popular book "A brief History of Time."  A number of relatively simple hypothesis can be presented to explain the possibilities involved but none are necessarily consistent with present-day theory of cosmology or cosmogony.  I would go into it if you or anyone else were interesting in the alternative possibilities to present-day theory concerning this question.

 

 

Have a go at it and I'll follow along...

[bornagainathiest]

 

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent? 

 

This is not an unanswerable question in science IMO, it is unanswerable based upon present-day definitions and science theory. It is one of the trickiest answers to understand, and was the question presented by Stephen Hawking at the end of his most popular book "A brief History of Time."  A number of relatively simple hypothesis can be presented to explain the possibilities involved but none are necessarily consistent with present-day theory of cosmology or cosmogony.  I would go into it if you or anyone else were interesting in the alternative possibilities to present-day theory concerning this question.

 

 

Alternative cosmologies are of no help when it comes to the express purpose of this site, Pantheory.

We know this from experience.  You don't.   Also Andrew Tomlinson isn't a Christian looking to deconvert - so you have nothing to offer him.

.

.

.

Your only purpose in posting anywhere in this forum is to drum up support for your maverick views.

So the only person you are looking to serve is yourself.  For that reason alone you should quit this forum immediately.  Your presence here adds nothing to this forum's purpose and it makes the business of deconverting Christians more difficult.

 

Please leave now.

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

 

 

My favorite unanswerable question: Why does existence even exist in the first place? When did existence begin? 

 

This is out of range for science. 

 

Is the question incoherent? 

 

This is not an unanswerable question in science IMO, it is unanswerable based upon present-day definitions and science theory. It is one of the trickiest answers to understand, and was the question presented by Stephen Hawking at the end of his most popular book "A brief History of Time."  A number of relatively simple hypothesis can be presented to explain the possibilities involved but none are necessarily consistent with present-day theory of cosmology or cosmogony.  I would go into it if you or anyone else were interesting in the alternative possibilities to present-day theory concerning this question.

 

 

Have a go at it and I'll follow along...

 

 

IMO you are correct.  No single known present day theory can answer this question.

 

as to why that no known "scientific theory can answer why existence exists at all? "

 

I think the answer involves both a combination of changing basic definitions in physics and then to logically organize theory and definition to match what is observed to explain reality.

 

Words Defined:

 

Reality -- the state or quality of having existence or substance. Reality must have substance, extension, internal inertia (relative motion), and occupies space.

 

Space -- the finite volume which encompasses reality. Also the distance between matter.

 

Matter -- the substantive aspect of reality that extends within the volume of space, and which must contain internal potential energy for its existence.

 

Time -- is an interval of change in the relationship between matter and space as measured by a clock.

 

Beginning (time) -- the point in time or space at which something starts.

 

Existence -- the state or fact of existing or being; the expression of any state or form of matter or energy

 

These are the necessary changed definitions for this explanation.

 

 

Now for the theory. Einstein had several famous quotes that relate to the relationship of matter,  space, time, and gravity. He said:

 

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)."

 

Essentially time, space, and gravity are defined or created by matter. Originally Big Bang (BB) theorists understood and proposed that the Big Bang was the beginning of both time and space. As the Bang expanded (energy and space) time could be counted and space (volume) would expand relative to its original size. The first change in the BB entity would accordingly have been the beginning of time, and the first volume would provide the yardstick for measuring the expansion of space, as does the size of matter in our own time frame. There could have been no change before the first change in reality otherwise there would have been a change before the beginning first change which defines the beginning of time, which would be a logical contradiction. So based upon this theory there was no transition from non-existence to existence. There never could have been a time (as time is defined above) where there was nothing. Something, according to this theory, cannot come from nothing.

 

So why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is not a possible state of existence concerning all of reality. This theory could apply to the BB model including Inflation, the BB entity, but also for any other theory of cosmology or cosmogony involving a finite beginning of time.

 

Hopefully this makes sense to you. Note that different definitions (as a part of alternative theory) are needed to come to this conclusion.

 

[Joshpantera]

Pantheory wrote: "So why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is not a possible state of existence concerning all of reality."

 

 

Having proposed this question in a pantheist group, that is the best attempt at an answer that came forward. Without cluing in on any one theory, the general idea is that if something exists now, then something had to have always existed because something = something, and absolute non-existence seems impossible. 

 

Existence exists, because the absolute non-existence of anything is impossible. 

 

That could actually be why existence even exists in the first place. There's no alternative, I agree with that logic.

 

So can science prove that non-existence is impossible?

 

That's one of the first things that comes to mind. Without proof, I'm not sure science can answer the question.  

 

Even if we suppose that existence exists because there's no alternative we're still starring at an infinite regress of existence which really can't be explained aside from just accepting it as mysterious and no other option. The question of ultimate's always seems to end in mystery. I see that as a legit unanswerable question.

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory wrote: "So why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is not a possible state of existence concerning all of reality."

 

 

Having proposed this question in a pantheist group, that is the best attempt at an answer that came forward. Without cluing in on any one theory, the general idea is that if something exists now, then something had to have always existed because something = something, and absolute non-existence seems impossible. 

 

Existence exists, because the absolute non-existence of anything is impossible. 

 

That could actually be why existence even exists in the first place. There's no alternative, I agree with that logic.

 

So can science prove that non-existence is impossible?

 

That's one of the first things that comes to mind. Without proof, I'm not sure science can answer the question.  

 

Even if we suppose that existence exists because there's no alternative we're still starring at an infinite regress of existence which really can't be explained aside from just accepting it as mysterious and no other option. The question of ultimate's always seems to end in mystery. I see that as a legit unanswerable question.

 

A point of order, Josh.

 

Observational science cannot provide proof.  In science, proofs only exist in math.  The other sciences can provide evidence.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

 

Pantheory wrote: "So why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is not a possible state of existence concerning all of reality."

 

 

Having proposed this question in a pantheist group, that is the best attempt at an answer that came forward. Without cluing in on any one theory, the general idea is that if something exists now, then something had to have always existed because something = something, and absolute non-existence seems impossible. 

 

Existence exists, because the absolute non-existence of anything is impossible. 

 

That could actually be why existence even exists in the first place. There's no alternative, I agree with that logic.

 

So can science prove that non-existence is impossible?

 

That's one of the first things that comes to mind. Without proof, I'm not sure science can answer the question.  

 

Even if we suppose that existence exists because there's no alternative we're still starring at an infinite regress of existence which really can't be explained aside from just accepting it as mysterious and no other option. The question of ultimate's always seems to end in mystery. I see that as a legit unanswerable question.

 

A point of order, Josh.

 

Observational science cannot provide proof.  In science, proofs only exist in math.  The other sciences can provide evidence.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

So is it answerable in math? 

 

Seems like a philosophical based position to suggest that existence exists because absolute non-existence is impossible. 

[disillusioned]

So is it answerable in math? 

 

Seems like a philosophical based position to suggest that existence exists because absolute non-existence is impossible.

I don't think that that was BAA's point, but I'll let him speak for himself.

 

Personally, I view math as a branch of philosophy. It is not a science. But even in math there are many questions which are unanswerable. In science, more so. I think your question is a good example of a philosophical question which cannot truly be answered. It certainly can't be answered by science.