Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does reality exist...

yeah and water is wet

brainlet idiot

op I think the question is a category error. you are applying questions beyond what can be asked

b r a i n l e t
d e t e c t e d

fallacy of composition. you take for granted causality even though just because all the constituents of this universe have a cause does not mean the universe needs/has a cause

>implying there's something

>water is wet
>proceeds to unironically say water is wet by explaining that it's a category error
lmao

the only proper answer to the age old "why am i here!!!!!!!" is literally just "you wouldn't be asking that question if you weren't". it's self-defeating

It just does bro. And you will never ever know why.

>Why is there something rather than nothing?

This is, for me, the biggest proof of God. There is something because someone wanted it.

universe was generated by a demiurge to create and harvest memes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
thank me later

Why is nothing the default? Why would there be nothing?

Why are you claiming it's a fallacy of composition?

Nothing can't make something. All physicists agree that there should not be something.

How did God come from nothing?

>Nothing can't make something.
[citation needed]
>what is quantum vacuum fluctuation

>All physicists agree that there should not be something.
Why are you lying?

He implies that I am confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

> The quantum vacuum is 'nothing'
Try again, brainlet

>>what is quantum vacuum fluctuation
It's not nothing

It is logically impossible for there to be nothing. Proof:

Definition: everything that exists is something.

Thm: nothing exists
Proof by contradiction: if nothing existed, it would be something. A contradiction that nothing exists. Therefore nothing doesn't exist.

see god isn't necessary. if he was, you would need a god for god to explain god unless you want to apply the fallacy of composition after needlessly presuming god, in which case why was it not applied before?

>Metaphysics is the answer
a bunch of autismos playing word games concerning the nature of existence is not the answer to anything

The problem is, what you call the universe (in fact, space and time) is a thing, an object. We know that since Einstein.

>need a god for god to explain god

No because if you need a god to explain god, then it's not god.

And your reasoning is obsolete.

>The problem is, what you call the universe (in fact, space and time) is a thing, an object. We know that since Einstein.
what in the fuck lmao

>the universe is a thing, an object
ok. do you think the fallacy of composition doesn't apply somehow to "things"? do you know english?

>The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole

>if you need god to explain god, then it's not god
>if you need god to explain the universe, then it's not the universe
how are you so brain-dead? by saying god doesn't need a god you are retroactively proving the fallacy of composition, in which case it needs to be applied before employing god in the first place

>your reasoning is obsolete
no further explanation needed. B T F O

> god doesn't need a god you are retroactively proving the fallacy of composition

By definition, god doesn't need god. It's like when you say " if god is not almighty ". By definition he is almighty then your proposition has no sense.

>By definition, god doesn't need god.
So something can come from nothing, negating the entire problem.

theres a greater probability of something happening than nothing you jackass

because God did it
used to be an atheist but unironically converted because of this problem
there being something just makes no sense assuming simple naturalistic cause and effect

>scalar/vector/spinor field
>nothing
Pick one.

The universe emerged from quantum fluctuations. If God can exists without beginning and end, so can quantum fluctuations.

> t. the eternal brainlet
Lrn2metaphysics, fgt. Edward Feser will rek ur ass. God sustains existence at every moment, because he is actus purus

To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women

I don't see how the argument assumes that at all.

You’re have an existential crisis user. I can understand, I had one at the beginning of the year and still haven’t fully gotten over it. Let me ask you this: does it really matter? At the end of the day, are you honestly going to be satisfied with any answer anyone gives you? My father pulled me aside during my first crisis episode and told me he was sorry I wasn’t brought up with religion in my life, because at least then I’d have an easy answer. I didn’t want that though, I wanted the answer of science - but in truth science doesn’t know either. Humans are fuelled by their desire to learn, but we were also built to live not knowing every single little question about existence. If millions of iterations of human beings lived before you not knowing the nature of their reality, you can as well.

Be excited to learn more and contribute to our overall knowledge, but don’t be depressed that you don’t know something.

Best wishes to you.

because you're a brainlet.
>something exists because when there's nothing there's nothing keeping something from spontaneously creating itself

Why did God create everything rather than destroying himself?

The thing I don't get is why even though humans know these things,they don't just solve their differences and make life easier,less confusing and start exploring space and the deep sea.

>psychics are real quantum physics prove this
>God is real quantum physics proves this
>God isn't real quantum physics proves this
>There is life after death quantum physics proves this
>Mom I don't have to get a job quantum physics proves this

Is quantum physics the new magic?

people can't unify their goals because that relies on putting all of them on the table without any fear of being ridiculed or judged.

Are you honestly saying why can't people just get along?

Try asking /x/ or /adv/, you'd get a more intelligible answer from either of them. Maybe even consider /b/.

>God bla bla bla
It doesn't matter what you claim about your imaginary friend if there is no need to invoke him in the first place. Either something can come from nothing or something always existed and god is unnecessary, or god couldn't exist.

What does that have to do with what you said about causality.

God

quantum physics has nothing to do with quantum physics

>implying there's a reason

> nature of existence is not the answer to anything

So basically Buddha? Indeed. Astrology, numerology and metaphysics over astrophysics and mathematics.

> Revert, invert, convert until you get what you desire...or find something better.

>new
brainlets have been at it with this shit for decades

>why can't we all get along ???????
>DUDE SPACE LMAO
>>>/reddit/

that was so sweet

Without mathematics, there would be no reality in any possibilities. Not only would nothing exist, but nothing would even be possible. Eternal truths must be grounded in something existent and actual, and consequently in the existence of something necessary, something in which its essence includes its existence. The possibility of mathematics is sufficient for it to be actual. This is true of nothing else. Only mathematics, if it is possible, must exist.Since nothing can prevent the possibility of that which includes no limits, no negation and hence no contradictions, and which has no requirements because it is “nothing” – an immaterial singularity whose values are always set exactly to a net zero – this alone is enough for us to know a priori that mathematics exists. Mathematics is structured nothingness. It is nothing and needs nothing. Nothing has no requirements, and nothing can prevent nothing from existing. The surest fact of all is that nothing exists.

yeah

Mu.

Unask the question. You are stumbling over a semantic void. See Joshu's Dog.

Pirsig did a good job explaining the concept while riding a Motorcycle. Good book.

You have to go higher. Higher up lie realms almost entirely disconnected from physical experience. Bigger words, not heard, not articulated, but experienced.

Science limited. Constrained. Cannot escape the trappings of its own formulas and methods.

Before 1 and 0, only the void and not-void, experience driven by Quality.

You're thinking I'm mad? Maybe.

But only those unafraid of abandoning the common-sense can tread into the uncharted unknowns.

The trick is to come back with wisdom, and being able to help mold the common-sense in becoming.

I kept the sentence structure choppy for a reason. Look up Pirsig's work, then try to sharpen your Philosophy. I recommend Wittgenstein. Learn to "play" with language and to recognize when it's trying to run-off with you.

And get some sleep.

>when there's nothing, there's nothing keeping something from spontaneously creating itself
first off this doesn't make sense. when there's nothing, there's nothing; saying anything else is retardedly semantic and complete conjecture.

second off, he's presupposing that there was nothing and that nothing caused something. moreover, something in this case doesn't necessarily need a cause

>semantic and complete conjecture
Better than the circular and also conjecture "quantum fluctuations (a property of the universe) created the universe"

>he's presupposing that there was nothing and that nothing caused something
How? There's no cause here. The need for a cause is a property of the universe.

Take DMT/a large dose of LSD and you will not only learn, but SEE the answer user.

is this the new Enlightened meme?

Stupid nihilistic bitch.

Lately I've been inclined to think that these kinds of questions are just a bug of the human mind and in reality they don't actually make sense.