It might be helpful if Hitchens would discuss this a little. After all, this is not just a theologian's question. Besides, the theologian's typical answer -- "because God created something" is not particularly helpful -- why is there God, rather than nothing?

There is no such thing as nothing. It's an artifact of the human imagination.

If nothing comes from nothing and there is something then there obviously never was nothing.

Even the coldest vacuum of spacetime between the galaxies is popping off virtual particles. Look up the "Casimir effect."

"Copleston replied, 'Why something rather than nothing, that is the question.'"

"As we have seen, this last question is epistemologically absurd. If one drops the context of existence, one abandons the possibility of explanation. The question 'Why?" demands a causal explanation, and the concept of causality presupposes something that acts as causal agent." (emphasis added)

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

How can anyone with an open working mind think there can be 'Everything' without there 'being' ‘Nothing’? The very Nature of Nature demands that there 'Be' Nothing 1st.

God was born from Nothing and grew to fill the Void with Everything.

In binary terms; 0=Nothing, 1=Everything (God) and all the one's and zero's strung together in between are the specifics we call Reality.

It amuses me that Intellectuals, Politicians and, Yes, even Religious Leaders are constantly calling for Philosophical, Policy and/or Doctrinal 'Interventions' to correct some failing perceived in the course of Humanity, yet deny that History is replete with instances of Divine Interventions.

Adaptability is NOT proof Evolution in the Darwinian sense. Intelligent Design does not deny the diversity sprung from a single source. The former accepts Random Chance as the progenerator of Life, the latter chooses to believe in a Greater Good, a Higher Power, and a Nobler Cause for the meaning of Life.

Ayn Rand held out high hopes for a New Intellectual Class but failed to understand that No One can remain long Intellectually honest and too deny the possibility of a Divinity. Intellectuals default to the failings of Religions to deliver Humanity from the horrors and injustices humanity visits upon it's self yet themselves fail to understand that the God of the Great Religions have brought Humanity to a point where the word "Peace" can be delivered around the world with the click of a 'Mouse'.

It comes down to the reality that you can choose to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

i think i might be part of the problem. i just can't stand God.

i don't know, Varian. Smith's argument seems to be just a slick semantic trick; it kind of reminds me of the Ontological Proof for god's existence... but, perhaps, i need to mull it over more.

slcraig wrote: "How can anyone with an open working mind think there can be 'Everything' without there 'being' ‘Nothing’?"

There isn't Everything. That is another artifact of the human imagination. If you believe in everything then I take it you also believe in invisible pink unicorns, square circles and little green men on Mars. Everything would have to include those things.

slcraig wrote: "The very Nature of Nature demands that there 'Be' Nothing 1st."

No, it doesn't.

slcraig wrote: "God was born from Nothing and grew to fill the Void with Everything."

Prove it. How is it you know anything about God.

slcraig wrote: "In binary terms; 0=Nothing, 1=Everything (God) ..."

Zero does not equal nothing. And 1 does not equal God. Zero is a useful artifact of the human imagination when doing mathematics, it's a placeholder for putting something later. It is not a description of the universe, it's a tool for modeling aspects of the universe with necessary over simplifications.

And if 1=God, then what is 2, 3 or 4. Nothing binary...

slcraig wrote: "...and all the one's and zero's strung together in between are the specifics we call Reality."

Nope. You're just demonstrating how these artifacts creep up in the human imagination. You're also demonstrating how these artifacts lead people's thoughts astray.

slcraig wrote: "History is replete with instances of Divine Interventions."

That's what you think. Now why do you think that?

slcraig wrote: "the latter chooses to believe in a Greater Good, a Higher Power, and a Nobler Cause for the meaning of Life."

If you can choose to believe something without good evidence for doing so, then you are insane. Is there any useful definition for terms like "Greater Good" (greater than what other good?) "a Higher Power", (what kind of power compared to what else?) and "a Nobler Cause" (nobler than what other cause?) much less evidence for these code worded obfuscations?

slcraig wrote: "It comes down to the reality that you can choose to be part of the problem or part of the solution."

So, why have you chosen to be part of the problem by dealing out these insane obfuscations and pseudo-philosophy?

excellent reply, but as you pretty much stated in your first post, and reinforced with your second, we're just dealing with an artificial question to begin with that will never be able to free itself from semantic tangles and pitfalls. it can't ever be answered, it shouldn't have been asked.

perhaps individual non-linguistic contemplation is the only way in these matters. whatever that entails.

Vivian Darkbloom wrote: "we're just dealing with an artificial question to begin with that will never be able to free itself from semantic tangles and pitfalls. it can't ever be answered, it shouldn't have been asked."

I wouldn't ask it and you wouldn't ask it, but it was asked and it does reveal the state of mind of the person who asked it. That's what "artifact" means.

I think you may be confused by the term "artifact" that I've been using. I perhaps should have used the word "artefact" which gets tagged as misspelled.

If you look it up here:

<link>

Definitions go like: "Something viewed as a product of human conception or agency rather than an inherent element: "The very act of looking at a naked model was an artifact of male supremacy" (Philip Weiss)."

and

"An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially one resulting from the technology used in scientific investigation or from experimental error: The apparent pattern in the data was an artifact of the collection method."

So, it makes sense to point to it as an artefact/artifact.

yes, i understand your use of the term and i was (i think) essentially agreeing with you; by no means was i saying you shouldn't have "answered" the question, or, more correctly, commented on it. the question is useful from an epistemolgical perspective, i suppose. but i think it reveals much more about the limits and the essential failure of language than it does the "state of mind" of the asker.

Vivian Darkbloom wrote: "i think it reveals much more about the limits and the essential failure of language than it does the "state of mind" of the asker."

The fact that language is failing us is part of the artifact.

But I don't think it does needs to fail us. We can ask different questions, just as unanswerable and as important by leaving out the assumption of nothingness. "What kind of universe do I live in?" "How come there is a universe?" "If there was a Big Bang, then what went BANG!?"

As for revealing the "state of mind" of the asker, well, take another look at slcraig's comment. "0=nothing, 1=God..." does he think we live in the Matrix? My apologies to slcraig but that was some pretty muddled thinking. I thought he revealed a lot about his state of mind. He was very pseudo-Platonic.

And what can we say of JohnEMack who asked Hitch to speculate on the question of nothingness? Could we say he is a psychiatrist who has studied effects of alleged alien encounter experiences?

<link>

We can ask better questions. Let's get rid of the notion that some abstract, Platonic notion of "nothingness" is some actual privileged beginning state of the universe. What good reason is there to assume that?

sure. and existential questions definitely need to be pondered; but- "What kind of universe do I live in?" and "If there was a Big Bang, then what went BANG!?" and questions of that sort are decidedly different than "How come there is a universe?" and "Why is there Something rather than Nothing"; language will always fail us there. "Why is there Something rather than Nothing" is nonsensical, might as well be asking "Why is there ynhqwwljz rather than TyipUgq?"

I agree with most of what you said, Vivian Darkbloom, except, perhaps, for use of the term "nonsensical."

There is a sense to the term "nothingness" for those who ask "Why is there Something rather than Nothing." It reveals that the person who has asked the question has some sort pseudo-Platonic idea about "nothingness."

If JohnEMack and slcraig were willing to stick around for some questioning we might dig out exactly what their preconceived notions about nothingness were. (Or maybe not, they just might be repeating a question they don't really understand.)

Because they aren't here to defend their notions their ideas about nothingness remain nonsensical to us, not necessarily to them.

"(Or maybe not, they just might be repeating a question they don't really understand.)"

exactly- that's the crux. not only is it a cliche, like the age-old chicken/egg inquiry, i still believe the wording is nonsensical and, thus, any answer impossible. but...it might point to a sensation, a supra-lingual "question" within all of us...which is just another aspect of the Existential dilemma, if not actually it...perhaps i might be flaking out here. i'm a novice in this area, and don't have much of a grounding in neither linguistics, hermeneutics, epistemology, etc...(as if that's not obvious enough!)

Vivian Darkbloom wrote: "... like the age-old chicken/egg inquiry,..."

The chicken and egg question: "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Has a logical answer.

The egg came first. Lizards were laying eggs long before they evolved into Chickens.

You'd have to be a creationist to deny it.

ok, genuis, riddle me this: which came first, the lizard or the egg?

ha, i know you're joking... the question "means" much more to certain people than that. it's a question certainly tangential to the "something/nothing" query, don't you think?