EduChris wrote:AkiThePirate wrote:...The idea that there is...a necessary entity upon which existence is contingent is making as many assumptions about the nature of the universe as almost any other theories as to the origins of the universe...
If "nothing" is defined as the state in which no existence is ever possible, in which no existence has ever been or ever will be, then it must be the case that this "nothing" cannot represent the rock-bottom, brute "fact" on which all contingent things depend. And since this "nothing" is not the ultimate brute fact, then it logically follows that "something-which-is-not-nothing" must necessarily constitute the ultimate brute fact. This "something-which-is-not-nothing" is thus shown to be logically necessary--and I refer to this as "Ultimate Reality" in order to distinguish it from the logically contingent things which (as far as we can tell) comprise the "mundane reality" of our universe. I don't see how this logic is even controversial. If you disagree, please present your argument.
Beyond that, my claim is that this Ultimate Reality is a
black box--that is, we cannot empirically know anything about it; it is not an object of empirical study. All we can do is subject the black box of Ultimate Reality to logical analysis in an attempt to rule out various possibilities.
The major world theisms all contend that God is this "black box" of Ultimate Reality. The
fact of Ultimate Reality cannot be logically denied; the essential point which distinguishes the God (capital "G") of today's major world theisms from the "god" (small "g") of scientism is "volition." Theism contends that Ultimate Reality involves some element of volition; non-theism contends that Ultimate Reality involves only some admixture of chance & necessity.
From the standpoint of epistemology, theism is the preferred option because it does not arbitrarily exclude anything from the mix of the only three causal agents we know: chance, necessity, and volition. In other words, if you are a non-theist, you have made an assumption--that UR involves no volition at all--and this assumption requires some justification. Non-theism thus cannot be a "default" position.
Defining nothing as the state in which no existence is ever possible appears to be building in the conclusion at the beginning. Nonetheless I agree that nothing is a most unsatisfying foundation on which to build something. Some principle needs to be in place to explain why things do in fact exist. But is the idea of a volitional creator God a satisfactory answer?
Let us first address a puzzling feature of this world: its
specificity. Why should the world be exactly the way it is? The laws and other characteristics of the world could surely have been different. Theism explains this as a volitional act of creation by God. But is God truly capable of creating only
one specific world? How would that world be chosen from all other alternatives? When we make a choice it is always based on something prior " reasoning, emotion, psychological factors, coercion, or whatever factors might influence a coin flip. What pre-existing factors influenced Gods decision? If something existed prior to God, then God is not the ultimate ground of existence after all. But if specific influences existed before God, we must explain why
those specific influences?
One solution is to say that God created
all possible worlds, incorporating every possible set of laws and contents. After all, God
could have created different kinds of world, or else God is not omnipotent. (Note: We are ignoring logical contradictions. They do not count.)
But if God is not omnipotent, then God possesses some power but not all power. The question then arises: Why
those powers as opposed to any others? What pres-existing factors constrained God. And why
those factors? Also, to be able to create some worlds but not to do so would imply unfulfilled potential, making God less than perfect.
If there is a God who created this world, then that God necessarily created all possible worlds. The idea of volition would seem to be inapplicable here. God had no choice.
We may then ask: Why is there a God? We can prove the existence of God from the existence of the world. God (or something) is necessary in the sense that an explanation for the existence of the world is needed. But is God inherently a necessary being independent of the existence of the world? Is existence of
something inherently necessary?
If existence is indeed primal and if the idea of a volitional creator is problematic, as we have seen above, then why posit a creator God? Possibly the reason for the existence of things lies in logic itself. Logically possible things may exist simply because they can. That which can be, is. Why? Because it can, and therefore it does. The age old question of :Why is there something rather than nothing? may actually be :Why is there some specific thing instead of everything else that could be? The answer may simply be that everything is; that every possible universe exists because logic allows it.
Whole universes are needed for context. The proverbial universe consisting of nothing but an infinite number of talking donkeys has no meaning because there is no context for donkey or talking. These things are meaningful in our universe because they reside in the context of a universe that supports their possibility. And a whole lot of support is needed. As Carl Sagan once put it, if you want to make a birthday cake from scratch you have to first make the universe.
Logically incompatible alternatives are separated into different universes. There may be a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series.
There may be an infinite number of such universes each one embodying all the possible contexts that would allow such a statement to be true, including the starting pitcher having tentacles.
This alternative scenario avoids the problem of prior constraints. All possibilities are actualized so no choices are involved. It also avoids the question of where God came from. A separate God is not needed. Existence itself is natural.
The default position of there being an Ultimate Reality does not necessarily lead to theism. In my alternative to theism, the ground of existence is simply logic. Its embodiment is all possible versions of physical reality. We may already be experiencing Ultimate Reality every moment of every day, or at least our particular share of it.
