/lit/ - Literature

Because there is something

>>17308666
>satan trips
Because God made it so.

>>17308673
what about when you die? or have a dreamless sleep?

Well i know one philosopher said i think therefore i am...
Make of that what you will.

>>17308666
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrataFXeMms

>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

>>17308689
so why is there god rather than nothing?
>>17308718
so post a work which can explain to me why there is something rather than nothing, surely something like that exists? if you don't know about one then stick around and see if another anon knows and can suggest such a work.

>>17308666 Checked.
We'll never know why there is something, but there is.
I'd like to know about you a little bit before going further.
Are you an atheist? have you ever had a déjà-vu? etc.
With some explanation, to help.

>>17308883
idk, I guess I'm an atheist but I'm open, actually more than that, I'm hoping desperately to find something that I can understand the world with that gives it some meaning and I've recently picked up the bible and had a break down the other day, lying on the floor of my shower the whole night and praying/meditating for God to reveal himself but so far I don't feel anything and I can't see christian or any other religion or metaphysical explanation as apes trying to describe the vastness of the universe with general ideas. so yeah, I'm an athiest, and I know that there are people who are a lot smarter than me who have decided that christianity or some other religion is the way but I've yet to have my own revelation, I'm open to anything.

I've had deja vu, yes, but I don't really know what to explain about them. the moments themselves didn't seem to have any significance and the way it occurred to me was like a single snap shot of a dream stretched out over months/weeks/years, as if I've glimpsed a screen shot of that moment and from then on it was in my subconscious occasionally coming up and disappearing until the moment that I had seen occurred and I had a final feeling of recognition that was more potent than the other ones but revealed nothing and disappeared just as quick, like an orgasm.

tl:dr
Yes I'm an athiest but I'm open to anything, yes I've had deja vu it was standard from what I heard of others

>>17308984
*I can't see christian or any other religion or metaphysical explanation as anything other than apes trying to describe the vastness of the universe with general ideas.

>>17308984
Thanks for the detailed answer.
You're agnostic, not atheist: you can't prove God's existence nor can you disprove it.
"God manifesting itself" is not something you should expect.

>I can't see christian or any other religion or metaphysical explanation as anything other than apes trying to describe the vastness of the universe with general ideas.
That is because most religious text—especially the bible—have been stripped of their esoteric meaning, all that remains is the exoteric.
Take Genesis 1:27, where Adam, or "him", was created... it's a horrible translation.
Adam was an androgynous being, until Eve was made out of him—he wasn't created male.
To explain the esoteric, it is to say that the perfect being—in the image of God, remember—is Androgynous, containing both feminine and masculine aspect, and also that the union between these two aspects is extremely powerful.
Someone else could explain it better than me, but the point remains that a lot has been stripped down.

A book I've taken a liking to recently is "The Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley. It's about the underlying traditions and teachings of religions, and how those teachings are beyond history.
There are other books, but this one is a good introduction, albeit a bit long and condensed.
You could also start meditating, or take psychedelics without any biased idea as to what would happen.

Finally, faith is something peculiar, we'll never understand God's ways nor the Truth.
And no, I don't mean "GoD WoRKs in MySTeRiOus WAys."
That's a scapegoat some cringe Christian use, the very people who can only see the exoteric.

tl;dr
read about the similarities between all religions, and you'll start realizing things.

>>17309144
wow dude

like...far out man

>>17308666
Go back to bed Gorgias.

>>17309144
>You're agnostic, not atheist: you can't prove God's existence nor can you disprove it.
yeah that's what I was looking for, English isn't my native language and I'm not educated enough in this sort of subject to know what the word I was looking for was

>"God manifesting itself" is not something you should expect.
why not? most christians I talked to irl and on here were like "just ask God to reveal himself and he will", and from my understanding of god, imperfect as it is, I don't see why that would be wrong, what does god gain from hiding himself?

>That is because most religious text—especially the bible—have been stripped of their esoteric meaning, all that remains... religions, and you'll start realizing things.
uhh so you're saying that you can't share all the knowledge I'm asking for right here and right now (namely why do things exist rather than not exist and if they exist because god let's them then why does god exist rather than not exist) and instead I have to sort through all this stuff myself? I seem to get this answer a lot, no one can really explain anything and just tell me to read books
>we'll never understand God's ways nor the Truth.
after asking around about this subject I'm beginning to suspect this, but why? what prevents us from knowing?
I'm afraid you're wasting my time, sorry if you are genuinely trying to help, but I'll read the book and the things you mentioned anyway for curiosity's sake since I don't think I can bring myself to suicide anytime soon.

>>17309204
kek

>>17309303
>>"God manifesting itself" is not something you should expect.
>why not?
Because (1) it may not manifest, or (2) you might miss the sign.
It probably won't take the form of Man and say "Look upon myne form, for I am God."
I wrote do not "expect" it to manifest.
God doesn't owe you anything.
>from my understanding of god, imperfect as it is, I don't see why that would be wrong, what does god gain from hiding himself?
I don't know, for I am not God.
Only God has that answer.
>so you're saying that you can't share all the knowledge I'm asking for [...]
>and instead I have to sort through all this stuff myself?
Would you believe everything someone tells you?
Using that same logic, why aren't you a devout Christian after your first read through of the Bible?
>I seem to get this answer a lot, no one can really explain anything and just tell me to read books
Perhaps because there's a point to doing the work yourself.
Only you can look into yourself as well as you will ever be looked into.
When you start learning how to snow, do you ask the Teacher to show you how to do the hardest tricks ever done?
No, you start at the beginning, all we can do is lead you on the right direction.
>after asking around about this subject I'm beginning to suspect this, but why? what prevents us from knowing?
The Truth is unexplainable, all we can aspire to do is get close to it.

>I'm afraid you're wasting my time
You are a typical Fedora. If you don't leave your biases aside, how will you ever be in a position to learn?
You look at a piece of knowledge and considering it doesn't fit with you current understanding, you brush it aside and curse it.
Yet how will you ever get closer to the Truth with that attitude?

>>17309404
*When you start learning how to ski

>>17308666
Something doesnt exist.
0+0=0.
The universe is infinite. It is either 0+0+0+0 or 1+1+1+1, either way it is something.

>>17309404
>Because (1) it may not manifest
has God manifested to you or someone else that you know?
>you might miss the sign.
god is all powerful all knowing, etc. if he wanted to make himself known he could make even the smallest sign seem like indisputable evidence of his existence if he wanted to, there's nothing beyond him.
>It probably won't take the form of Man and say "Look upon myne form, for I am God."
idk man, a disembodied voice or a feeling of warmth would be pretty nice....
>God doesn't owe you anything.
doesn't he love me infinitely? that has to count for something
>I don't know, for I am not God.
Only God has that answer.
what do you know about your god?
>Would you believe everything someone tells you?
yes if they can back up their claims
>Using that same logic, why aren't you a devout Christian after your first read through of the Bible?
doesn't back up its claims
>Perhaps because there's a point to doing the work yourself.
what does this even mean? what do you mean by work? whats the point of doing it yourself? you're saying perhaps, does that mean you are undecided?
>only you can look into yourself as well as you will ever be looked into.
I'm not asking for psychological counsel though, I'm asking about why we do be existin an shiet
>When you start learning how to ski, do you ask the Teacher to show you how to do the hardest tricks ever done? No, you start at the beginning, all we can do is lead you on the right direction.
I'd like the teacher to at least show me that they can do the hardest tricks so I know I'm not getting scammed or to entertain me
>The Truth is unexplainable, all we can aspire to do is get close to it.
you basically repeated the statement that I questioned you about
>You are a typical Fedora. If you don't leave your biases aside, how will you ever be in a position to learn?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you, I'm just trying to be critical, trying being the keyword, I might not be successful but I'm trying. what are my biases and how do I fix them?
also
>I don't know, for I am not God. Only God has that answer.
>The Truth is unexplainable, all we can aspire to do is get close to it.
>faith is something peculiar, we'll never understand God's ways nor the Truth.
how do these differ from "GoD WoRKs in MySTeRiOus WAys."?

>>17308666
Because of your shitposting.

>>17308666
Either because the initial state at t1 is necessary, or because it is a brute contingency.

>>17308666
Well think about it like this, is something the abscence of nothing or is nothing the abscence of something? It makes more sense to me that nothing is the abscence of something and when you look at it that way, all it takes is there for to be even a speck, the smalles portion of soemthing possible for there to be something instead of nothing. It seems more likely that that something no matter how small and insignificant could lead to larger and larger somethings given enough time.

I think people get their heads wrapped up in trying to explain how something came from nothing, when isn’t it entirely possible for there to have been always been something, but be so insignificant or scarce to be considered nothing?

The way I see it is only logical for there to be something. Nothing is concept, an idea that we have but is never reachable. Something is just a fact of existence.

>>17309963
>doesn't he love me infinitely?
Does a Father pamper his child?
.
.
.

You're gravely missing the point.
Since this will dissolve in criticizing the words of the other and not their meanings, I'll leave you with some sentences.

Everything has a cause except God.
God is infinite, it is everything.
We are one with God.
Look inside you.

>>17310039
how could there have always been something that could be considered scarce or insignificant if the only comparison it would have is itself? I think there could only be something or nothing, being "smaller" wouldnt make it less likely to exist, but I kind of agree that maybe nothing is a man made concept that doesn't exist, but we certainly do see it for example when we go to sleep without dreams or observe the void of space although there might be more to it and we are actually looking at "something" that we can't understand so we imagine it as nothing, could you go in depth with your thoughts on there being something small being always and leading to something bigger? I'm not sure what it means but you might be on to something considering how matter is energy and the things that we think of as static are more like a condensed wave.
>>17310064
i was gonna say thanks for taking the time to talk to me about your beliefs and not speaking down to me but I guess I spoke too soon, thanks for nothing schizo I actually stayed up till 2 in the morning waiting for your replies, I hope you and your god meet soon so he can tell you all about the unreachable truth of what a fag you are

>>17309963
>has God manifested to you or someone else that you know
Not the same anon, but yes. I have been given many proofs, of these I can also feel Him as fire in my chest as I seclude myself in prayer. I have to take care not to focus too much, I am afraid I would die. But I feel this only because I have learned to listen. God's voice is the most subtle thing you can "hear". It takes a lifetime. I am not sure whether you can hear Him in today's cities at all, with all the noise and distractions.

>>17310783

>Omnipotent God

>Can't make himself heard over traffic

Stupid nigger, you must be Americ*n

>>17308666
Because there can’t be “nothing”. Existence is a certainty, you can’t have nothing preceding it, nor nothing succeeding it. Think of the laws of thermodynamics. It’s eternal. If you have true “nothing”, being will never come into being. But as far as we know, a state of true nothing isn’t really a thing, as far as we know. It would be illogical in our universe and only reserved for hypotheticals and abstractions. You can’t get a 1 from repeatedly adding zeroes, and in abstracts maths you can get a 0 out of a 1 through subtraction, but you can’t get a true zero out of a 1 in real life (laws of thermodynamics), only in terms of abstracted mathematics we could.

>>17310824
Not what I meant, and you know it. Auditory noise is incosequential. Sorry to disappoint, I've never been to the New World.

Big boom energy pew pew pew bzzzzzt brrrpipipipipip pfffeeeeeeeeeiiiuuuuw bang

>>17310783

> Can feel him like a fire in my chest

Are you sure this isn't indigestion anon

>>17310783
>focus on gods existence too much
>drop dead
kek

>>17310846
but there is a true state of nothing, the universe isn't expanding into more "universe", it is a bunch of matter expanding into nothing that's why heat death is a thing because eventually the energy and matter that we have will be so spread out across nothing that it will become useless, too much seems we are a splotch of something surrounded by nothing

>>17308763
>but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

>>17311135
ok you win, here's an excerpt from my diary desu, what do you make of this proposed logical conundrum?

>>17308673
Why doesn't more something pop into existence if it doesn't need a reason to exist, or if the patterns of nature are arbitrary (AKA the laws)?

>>17308666
Checked, satan

>>1
I say there is.

>>17308763
>why is there god instead of nothing?
So you've made of the universe god, giving it a god's characteristics

>why is there something rather than nothing
That's not a question. Only noise and confusion.

>there can't be nothing, the laws of nature and matter/energy are eternal
One step closer to theism

>>17311592
so I have, so I have
>>17311612
ok I'll put this another way, what started the chain of events that led to your existence

That is a moot question. I don't think answering it would change anything. Maybe that's the starting point of mythologies and religions. Therefore the best answer so far is
>Because God saw it was good
If you think about it, Christianity is the most scientifically compatible of ancient religions. The wind, the sky and the ocean don't have wills of their own. They're as alive as a rock is.
The only thing that has a will of its own is humanity, which makes us prone to sin and suffer its consequences.
Makes one think whoever wrote down the commandments wanted the best for us. And that Love is a sufficient esummary of those.

>>17311685
how

>>17311724
Because it's just a copy paste of theism- there was an eternal thing that always existed and which explains existence. We can't necessarily explain why, we just take it for granted. It's like an impersonal god present in everything, with cyclical periods of banging and shrinking IIRC

>>17311723
>That is a moot question.
not to me
>I don't think answering it would change anything.
it would change something for me
>>Because God saw it was good
and who saw that god was good
>The only thing that has a will of its own is humanity
debatable
>Makes one think whoever wrote down the commandments wanted the best for us.
only if we worship their god and them as it's prophet
>>17311776
>Because it's just a copy paste of theism- there was an eternal thing that always existed and which explains existence.

but it's not just some thing that always existed, it's existence itself that always existed, saying that it was created by god just seems pointless, it could be true but what reason do we have to believe this?

>>17311916
Come up with a better answer then. That has been the most popular and scientifically compatible for almost 2000 years.
The Law was given for the Israelites to not sin, so whoever commanded it had their best interest in mind. I hope we have the same concept of sin.

what is nothing

Why should there be nothing instead of something?

>>17308666
maybe causality started with effect and not cause

>>17312013
>Come up with a better answer then. That has been the most popular and scientifically compatible for almost 2000 years.
that everything just always existed and always will in a never ending cycle without the intervention what we think of as God. desu I can't say it's better, I can't prove that god didn't create the world or that he did but it has occams razor on its side
>The Law was given for the Israelites to not sin, so whoever commanded it had their best interest in mind.
I can't say what whoever wrote them had in their mind since not all people that spread good messages are themselves good but I sure hope that they wanted the best so I'm inclined to agree.
>I hope we have the same concept of sin.
you mean you and I have the same concept or the Israelites and us? >>17312028
when there is an absence of thing
>Why should there be nothing instead of something?
it has about as much reason to be as something. or rather the something has as much reason to exist as it does to not, there is none. so why exist? if we go back and back and back is there anything at the beginning? is there even a beginning?

>>17312283
maybe but what was it like before it "started?"?

>>17311916
>but it's not just some thing that always existed, it's existence itself that always existed, saying that it was created by god just seems pointless, it could be true but what reason do we have to believe this?
That's unimportant, it still asserts that there is some thing that is uncreated and absolute, something that can never be scientifically proven; even if it can (which is highly dubious), there would still be further questions, and further, and further.

There is no reason to believe that existence itself has always existed, either. Could it not exist? If so, why does it not exist? Why does it follow set laws that are identifiable by men? What does "existence has always existed mean?" Nothingness is clear, but existence is constituted by things, or is at least the potential for things to exist. Why don't new things pop into existence? Why don't new laws of nature get made? Wherefrom the order?

>>17312271
Because nothing is the default. If something were the default, then where is there annihilation occurring?

>something existing in nothing versus
>nothing eating away a something

>>17312999
>it still asserts that there is some thing that is uncreated and absolute, something that can never be scientifically proven; even if it can (which is highly dubious), there would still be further questions, and further, and further.
why do you think that gods existence can't be proven scientifically?
>There is no reason to believe that existence itself has always existed, either. Could it not exist? If so, why does it not exist?
I don't know, that's why I made the thread.
>Why don't new things pop into existence? Why don't new laws of nature get made?
they might, we don't know much about the universe and we have even created a cope called dark matter which is something that supposedly can't be observed by us but affects the world around us which is how scientist explain the movement of planets not working the way we expect them to with our theories. its all probably got as much reason to exist with the laws it does as a God who doesn't bend to any laws who decides to create them.

>>17311546
maybe things can only pop into existence one universe at a time

>>17311546
what makes you think everything just popped into existence and hasn't always been here

Nothing can't exist because it existing would be something.

>>17308666
fuck off, satan

>>17308666
>why is there something rather than nothing?
Whole bunch of assumptions going on there.
>you're all so smart
Starting with the most egregious was a good plan.

>>17308666
There is no difference between something and nothing

>>17311546
Its been here forever bro

>>17308666
why? why? why you ask? WHY?

to pose the question is to presume an answer! But... why? Why should we presume an answer exist?

>The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us! What strange, perplexing, questionable questions!

1.We can understand something and nothing in four ways:
1.1 Something as Some-thing and nothing as No-thing, as the affirmation(some) and negation(no) of things.
1.2 Something and Nothing as a fundamental Oppisition, as Beeing vs Nothingsness.
1.3 Something as Beeing and Nothing as the Negation of Beeing.
1.4Nothing as Nothingness and Something as the negation of Nothingness.
1.1 Is no option because the Thing itself would be either something or nothing.
1.2 Is no option because we would have two fundamental Forces which oppose each other and share nothing in common, a reality where both intermingle wouldnt be possible.
1.3 Is no option because Something, or rather beeing, has qualities, ie. it persists over time, has the Possibility of Becoming and so on. If we were to set Beeing as the Beginning we would need to explain from where those qualities came from.
So it seems that only 1.4 is a viable Option. Form the Beginning it has two Advantages:
2.1 Because Nothingness is not within Time one can not ask what was before Nothingness in a meaningful way.
2.2Because Nothingness has nothing, nothing about it needs to be created.
Then the question arrises, what is the nature of Nothingness, understood as the final Reality?
In Short, it is Beyondness, every thought about it, as a thought, already is, and therefore already too late. So haw can we think about it ? Only in thinking about how our thinking fails to think about it. Put it this way, that which is before thinking and not thinking itself, can only be grasped by slowly disassemblying thinking itself.
When we then dissassemble the differentations which constitute our thinking, we see that the creation of something out of nothing is necessary for nothingness to be really nothingness. Nothingness is beyond time, but this still is a thought which is. In realitly Nothingness is even beyond beeing beyond time and beeing within time, so it must be both, in time and beyond time, and what is our existence other that than nothingness in time?
How this leads then to God we can see in Eckhart, late Heidegger is also important here.

>>17308666
Didn’t Henri Spergson btfo of this question by proving it was built upon flawed metaphysics?

>>17309303
>after asking around about this subject I'm beginning to suspect this, but why? what prevents us from knowing?
Being is a limit, most metaphysical questions go beyond that limit.

>>17308666
If we use formal logic, it's false to say there is just *something*, but we must say there is everything (i.e., everything exists, or at any rate, every existing thing exists). Assuming that all things exist (represented by universal quantification Ax(x)), then we can conclude there is no *nothing*. This is because *nothing* is equivalent to an existential of a negation (symbolically: (Ex)~X), and *no nothing* is equivalent to the negation of that negation (i.e., ~(Ex)~X). But by the quantifier shift, this is just equivalent to what we started with, that is, all things exist (i.e. Ax(x)). So there you go. There is no nothing because there is everything.

>>17308718
>>17311135
>>17308666
My fucking great and quality threads get mopped up by the jannies, but this shit stays. Mods are a joke, plus I heard they do it for free, can anyone confirm this statement? Do fat jannies clean it up for free?

>>17316223
post the warosu of your great and quality threads

>>17316223
>fat jannies clean it up for free

its all statistics, like most things in the universe.

there is only ONE way for there to be nothing.

INFINITE ways for there to be something.

ergo, something

>>17308666
For humanity it will always remain a mystery. You can get something resembling an answer through focused meditation. Ultimately, only God knows.

>>17316209
I liked this, it’s analytic philosophy right? Got any recs I can read to better understand this?

For God's own pleasure, and the glory of His name.

>>17316302
Yeah it's just some simple predicate logic. I used the text book "Modern Logic" by Graeme Forbes