4 ms·
The question "why" does not necessarily point to a purpose, although we can not 'a apriori' exclude that possible purpose from being there. You could see it as
by cristianpascu 15y ago
The question "why" does not necessarily point to a purpose, although we can not 'a apriori' exclude that possible purpose from being there.
You could see it as two folds answer: either the laws and this "nothing" simply exists, or something else created them.
There's really no need to keep asking "what, then, created the creator", for simply things are the way they are and not necessarily as in the explanation we find satisfactory. It could be that the Universe has no creator (I personally find it highly improbable), it could be that it has one creator, or N. I can't be absolutely certain and we can't really check. All we can do is have an opinion/belief about it.
- mangodrunk 15y ago>There's really no need to keep asking "what, then, created the creator", for simply things are the way they are and not necessarily as in the explanation we find satisfactory. The same thing could be said for anything and why wouldn't you just stop at the universe instead? >It could be that the Universe has no creator (I personally find it highly improbable) How is this improbable? Do you have evidence or something that would lead you to such a claim? Also, what do you mean by "creator"? >I can't be absolutely certain and we can't really check. All we can do is have an opinion/belief about it. How do you know this? Isn't that a claim of certainty that you said we don't have. If we don't have evidence or any logical reasons for something, then guesses aren't sufficient explanations.
- cristianpascu 15y agoAs I said, I have an opinion/belief. If I had evidence, it would be more than an opinion. But it's not. As for the certainty, no one so far has created a test, not even theoretically, to discern between a created and an uncreated thing. At least I'm not aware of any. Still, epistemologically, beliefs can be shown to be true, although they are not justified. Sometimes it's pure luck, some other times it's insufficient justifications. When I say it's improbable, it's a statement of belief. Not my intention to be persuasive.
- derleth 15y ago> As for the certainty, no one so far has created a test, not even theoretically, to discern between a created and an uncreated thing. It's simple: Demonstrate the existence of the creator. > As I said, I have an opinion/belief. Why?
- cristianpascu 15y agoIf you prefer Mercedes to BMW, and a total stranger comes to you asking "Why?", would you feel obliged to answer?
- slurgfest 15y agoIs this really a matter of trivial preference like that?
- cristianpascu 15y agoI don't it's trivial. It's a matter of life and death. But my death and my life. It's not that I don't have an answer, but I don't like feeling interrogated. :)
- mangodrunk 15y agoThis isn't an interrogation, but you said some things which I think deserved critique. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it so, nor is it something that should be respected. You don't have any legitimate reasons to say these things so you hide behind opinion as if because it is an opinion it's above scrutiny.
- slurgfest 15y agoI guess I think that choice of car brands is trivial; maybe it wasn't a great example. Thinking about things is really important (and this isn't just a personal matter or a matter of taste, but a matter of what is true and what is false). But I CERTAINLY agree that nobody ought to be forced to have awkward conversations, this is why some places have long standing traditions like "no religion at the dinner table" (and, for that matter, "no proselytizing by public school teachers")