Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-12-20T01:57:29Z

ReginaldF: /* The Biblical answer */

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

:Why is the anthropic principle unsatisfactory? [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 09:58, 10 December 2012 (EST)

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: Right. There is no such thing as nothing. The act of philosophy is not a primary mental function, but an abstraction of the practical function which the human mind would have in regard to moving within, and manipulating, the physical world.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 20:51, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:A complex set of deeply implicit presupositions are within any personal perception of the 'unsatisfactoriness' of a philosophical position, such that 'unsatisfactory' is an overall description of the 'subjective' result. The problem, of course, is whether a given set of presuppositions is coherent. Many are not, but which are perceived as coherent by their vaguely understood results in their contrast to their favorite straw men.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:02, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

I believe that the relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death. One's purpose is to create the other. There is such a thing as a healthy forest fire. It destroys dead and decaying trees-causing death-but out of the ashes healthy new saplings spring up, and continue the life of the forest.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:The moral, ethical, and philosophical decay of a population causes the congruent environments to become imbalance toward that population, so that, if the decay is too extreme, then destructive forces impose the death of both young and old alike. But, trees are just trees, so that the young are no more or less worthy than the old, and that, only by the failures of humans (congruent local or planet-wide) can their congruent trees be so diseased as to require their destruction by torrents of flood or fire.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:23, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

The relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death, but not because one's purpose is to create the other. Rather, it's because the latter is the absence of the former. It is not the purpose of death or nothing to create life (that's impossible) and it's not the purpose of life or something to create death or nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

If there was nothing, we simply wouldn't be here to observe it. -- [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]] 18:34, 30 September 2009
:That answers '''how''' we know there's something, not '''why''' there's something. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::But that is based on the assumption that you are observing 'something.' There is the offchance (which I do not believe), that there is nothing, and we do not exist. This is where the axiom comes in. We cannot prove the existence of the universe, we can only assume it does. It takes of stretch of the imagination to even consider it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
::: If we didn't exist, how could we possibly be discussing this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

By addressing the state of "nothing" we are causing something so there will always be something rather than nothing. In the same way one can try to "clear your head" but this fails because in the act of clearing one's head one is filling it with the task of clearing the head/the mind. In this way we must always have something rather than nothing. Even in a vaccuum, the absence of everything is something. [[Bealecr]] 15:21, 30 April 2009

:This seems to be a topic of duelisms. Cold is the absence of heat. Absolute Zero is the absence of movement. Can't we just agree that "nothing" is a theory of the mind, thus making it something again?
:And in a random bit from a while ago, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ebayer_sells_nothing/ someone attempted to sell "absolutely nothing" on eBay]. Oh, and [http://cgi.ebay.com/Box-of-Nothing_W0QQitemZ130334037303QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1e58839537&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 here's a current listing] [[User:EricaS|EricaS]] 19:47, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
::If I don't find it to be the genuine article, I'll do whatever necessary to get my money back! :) Which is the problem, because no one can actually convey (much less possess) such an article. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:30, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== The dysjunct ==

If there is (or were) nothing, then there would be neither an answer to the question, nor the question. But, in so far as there is both 'something' and a questioner apart from that 'something', then there must be answer, and it must not be in that 'something', for, what is a thing worth if it have no one to place a worth upon it, nor even anyone to ask anything about its worth? So, if (or, since) there is something (including a questioner), then there is, therefore, an answer to the question, despite that many people look in the wrong place for an answer and so 'find the question impossible to answer non-trivially'.

Now, if whatever is that which most basically, necessarily exists is non-trivial, then the answer is non-trivial. For, that which necessarily exists, if it be non-trivial, cannot actually create something which is, ''at root'', trivial, since that root is none other than itself. And, what it creates is a reflection---albeit a contingent and synthetic reflection---of itself. Only trivia a can create trivia, and it is doubtful whether trivia can create the non-trivial.

So, in so far as we measure ourselves to be non-trivial, who are but contingent knowers (and, thus, questioners) the answer is more non-trivial, by far, that are we. Something besides ourselves exists, but, that of which we have empirical access is all measured by us to be of less worth than ourselves: rocks and trees, stars and lifeless planets, even gravity, electric lighting, and animals. But, all these things are worth much in our minds, so long as, without us, at least the animals and the plants exist, for such things a reflections of us, however dim. ''Silent Running''.
[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 12:32, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==The Biblical answer==
There is something rather than nothing because it pleases God. Revelation 4:11 says, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (KJV) "You deserve, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power. You have created all things, and for Your pleasure they are and were created." (Conservative Bible) [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Regrettably this is not really an answer because surely God himself is something rather than nothing. Even prior to the creation of the universe one could still then ask, "Why is there something (i.e. God) rather than nothing"? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 21:20, 10 December 2012 (EST)
::It seems that you're trying to set up the problem of [[infinite regression]]. The answer to that is that since God is the Prime Mover, it's meaningless to ask ''why'' God exists. You might as well ask who created God and why. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:46, 11 December 2012 (EST)
:::I'm not trying to "set up" anything. I merely pointed out that if you are attempting to answer the question, ''Why is there something rather than nothing''? it is no answer at all to say "because it pleases God". If God is "something" then you are left with the original question still unanswered. Perhaps what you mean to say is that the question cannot be answered? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 19:52, 12 December 2012 (EST)
::::If you are serious about not trying to set up the problem of infinite regression, then you have to accept that at some point, something ''just is,'' without a "why." That something is necessarily God. If I'm mistaken, then let's have your Biblically backed explanation as to why God exists. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 11:50, 17 December 2012 (EST)
::::To clarify my previous response, there is a difference between a question that cannot be answered and one that makes no sense. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 13:40, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:::::If, at some point one must just accept that something "just is", then I assume that you take the view that the question cannot be answered. Is that right? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:57, 19 December 2012 (EST)

==Spiritual Creator==
You can explain the existence of matter, energy, and life from a purely physiological perspective. According to the probabilistic dictates of quantum field theory, even an apparently perfect vacuum seethes with particles and antiparticles popping into and out of existence. With advances in quantum field theory, and physics the day will eventually come when science can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Submarine

2012-12-20T01:50:43Z

ReginaldF:

[[Image:Typhoon3.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A typhoon class nuclear ballistic missile submarine.]]
A '''submarine''' is a vehicle that travels under water (i.e. an underwater boat). The submarine was invented in the 17th century. Though it was originally designed for the purpose of exploration, its military benefits soon became clear. The first military submarine was the Turtle which was used by the Colonists during the [[American Revolution]], although without success.

The first submarine to successfully sink a ship was the Confederate vessel [[CSS Hunley|CSS ''Hunley'']] which sank the USS ''Housatonic'' during the [[American Civil War]] on 17 February 1864 in Charleston Harbour. The ''Hunley'' never returned from the mission, sinking with the loss of all crew. It has recently been found and recovered.

The first submarine commissioned into the United States Navy was the USS ''Holland''. She was commissioned on Columbus Day in 1900 and was subsequently designated SS 1.

Submarines played a significant role in both World Wars I and II, and to this day many nations have submarine fleets, varying from the large, highly trained nuclear fleets of of the United States and the United Kingdom, to countries owning one Kilo class diesel submarine.

Various different power sources have been used on submarines over the years. The ''Hunley'' was powered by its crew turning a crank which was connected to the propeller. Petrol engines have also been used, but they gave way to diesel engines. Hydrogen peroxide was used in some German submarines during [[World War II]]. More recently nuclear power has been used. It should be noted it this context that the term "nuclear submarine" refers to a submarine that uses nuclear power for propulsion, not necessarily one which carries nuclear weapons.

Today, the United States Navy operates 14 Ohio class SSBN's, 4 Ohio class SSGN's, 3 Seawolf class SSN's, approximately 40 Los Angeles Class SSN's, and 2 commissioned Virginia class SSN's.

*SSN is Ship, Submersible, Nuclear (powered)
*SSBN is Ship, Submersible, Ballistic (missile), Nuclear (powered)
*SSGN is Ship, Submersible, Guided (missile), Nuclear (powered)

The "N" refers to nuclear propulsion, not necessarily nuclear weapons. An SSBN is capable of being armed with nuclear missiles while an SSGN is designed to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. SSN's are capable of carrying Tomahawks, but only a very limited number of tubes. The SSGN has 8 tubes that can be reconfigured to support Special Operations Forces in a variety of roles.

Currently, the United States Navy maintains submarines bases in
Groton, CT
Norfolk, VA
Kingsbay, GA
Banger, WA
San Diego, CA
Pearl Harbor, HA
Guam and at least for the meantime there is a submarine tender at the NSA (naval support activity) located in LaMadalena, Italy. An island off the coast of Sardinia.
[[Image:submarine.jpg|left|250px|thumb]]

== See also ==

* [[Naval warfare]]
* [[United States Navy]]
* [[World War II, Pacific]]
* [[Destroyer]]
[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:Warships]]

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-12-20T01:42:12Z

ReginaldF: /* Citations */

*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]


== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)
:::Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with [[William Lane Craig]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]). In addtion, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

This is important:'' I can't remember the full titles of some of my own papers.'' '''I still know what they contained.''' Even if I didn't, it wouldn't provide any evidence to say that their contents were erroneous. Perhaps you should all try and find some evidence to support ID instead of whining incessantly about evolution, and Dawkins in particular. Why on earth are there so many articles about him? Does his website really need its own separate article? It's senseless.

I find it disheartening that so many people here appear to conflate an individuals actions with the credibility of the theories which they support. Richard Dawkins saying 'Oh, God' is not telling at all. What is telling is that you're willing to consider that to be evidence of anything at all. It is very difficult to debate those who do not depend on evidence in order to determine what they should believe. Whether he 'wins' or not in these pointless debates is entirely beside the point.

Even if Dawkins were somehow 'defeated', it provides zero evidence in favour of ID, nor does it discredit evolution. Science is not a competition, nor is it a game. It isn't about winning or losing, and the only agenda real scientists have is to determine the truth. I'm also sick of hearing ID conspiracy theories that their papers are not accepted in real journals due to conniving scientists. It really doesn't work like that. If some ID research had any vague application of the scientific method, or even some evidence of the smallest sliver of insight and critical thought, it might not run into the same problems. Unfortunately for ID, if such standards of intellect were to be applied, the work would be self-defeating.

These specialist 'ID journals' that have popped up are just embarrassing. If I developed a hunch, and no journals would accept the paper, I would take on board the reviewers comments and try again. What I would NOT do is create an open access journal with some half-hearted, twisted ecclesiastic peer review process. It is ironic that these journals would refuse point-blank to publish a paper on evolution. Doing PRECISELY what ID proponents complained about, toward evolution. It's exceedingly hypocritical.

Disclaimer: My own views are not disclosed in the above. My issue here is not with ID, it is with the misapplication of logic. Evidence negating A does not prove B, and in no way can the actions of one individual, beyond their scientific literature, provide evidence for or against anything. Anything RD does or does not do, or says in a debate, has absolutely no bearing on either evolution or ID. Having a poor memory at 74 doesn't, either. Get a grip. If you would like ID to be taken seriously, at least try and treat it like a real science yourselves and with a little respect. If the proponents don't, the critics certainly won't. Finally, science functions through conflict. Every theory has its critics and its fans. Never until ID did this devolve into continuous ad-hominem attacks on the character of scientists. This is demonstrated by the sheer number and length of articles on Dawkins.

Why is his article longer than Jesus'? Longer life-span? More worth talking about? More significant contribution to humanity? More interesting? Better looking? What is it about Richard Dawkins, an agnostic evolutionary biologist, that warrants so much more of your time than Jesus and articles about the proponents of ID?
[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 22:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==

There's no such thing as supernatural beings. I knew that before I'd ever heard of Dawkins, and I still know that even though I've never read a word that he's written. You can discount him and attack him and send all the sharks and dogs and whatever else you want at him, but it won't change the fact that he has nothing to do with the non-existence of deities, spirits, ghosts, demons, devils, or gods. [[User:GarryG|GarryG]] 18:33, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:Then prove your assertion, ScottDG. I would love to see an atheist prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 2012.png|right|400px]]
:::GarryG, first of all, do you know that atheism is true? What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? I do know that [[Christian apologetics|there is an abundance of evidence supporting Christianity]] and that [[global atheism]] is shrinking while [[global Christianity]] is seeing tremendous growth. Third, does Richard Dawkins mean so much to someone at Conservapedia? Are you a mind reader? Lastly, it appears people are caring less and less about what Richard Dawkins has to say according to: the web traffic tracking company Alexa (see graph to the right), the web traffic tracking company Compete (see: [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/richarddawkins.net/ Compete graph]) and according to Google Trends as can be seen [http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Richard+dawkins HERE] (relative to latter part of 2006). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 20 February 2012 (EST)
GarryG, by the way, why do you care so much about who may or may not be important to me? Do you have [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]? :) I suggest getting taking up a hobby. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I'd suggest you take up one yourself. If you don't think there's proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, well, start proving evidence that religion is true and correct better. You don't have to undermine atheism to prove religion. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:45, 20 February 2012 (EST)
In order to "undermine" something, it first needs to have a foundation. Here is what an atheist said about atheism: "Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard." [http://liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I really don't know how to reply to that, considering you ignored the main part of my argument, where I said you kept criticizing atheism and you could prove religion without mocking and satirizing atheism. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 22:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
::::As far as Richard Dawkins related material that I created at Conservapedia, even an atheist has cited material of mine approvingly as it documented some relevant information. The atheist Monica Shores cited some material of mine in her article on New Atheism entitled ''Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women?'' Ms. Shores wrote: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors." You see now what a great public service my atheism related articles are to the atheist public - even an atheist sees the value of the informative material provided. :) In addition, about 10 or more web pages quote Ms. Shores cite of Conservapedia as can be seen [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+lack+of+lady+presence+is+so+visible+that+Conservapedia%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a HERE] (those are merely the web pages that are in the Google search results. There are probably more web pages). I hope that clears things up for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:04, 24 February 2012 (EST)

== Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms ==

Richard Dawkins calls himself an agnostic in no uncertain terms. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html] Elaborate on this point and incorporate it in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article and in the [[Richard Dawkins' worldview]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

It is Conservapedia and the media in general that consistently refers to RD as atheist, not himself. Trustworthy? The article applies particular beliefs and positions to people who have openly stated that they do not hold. This is actually a good example.

However, this is a little out of context, too. He says that he is _technically_ an agnostic as he cannot disprove Gods existence, merely interpret the available evidence. He does give an approximate percentage of 99.999....% atheist. As a scientist he cannot fairly state god does not exist without an ability to prove it. This is more than likely to be impossible - therefore he is forced to be technically agnostic. The vast majority of atheists will take a similar position - given the very notion of God is outside measurement and observation. There's a fine line between openly having bias (which is fine as it is declared), and quoting entirely out of context to suit a specific agenda. That is the impression I get from the above post. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:32, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== Investigate Richard Dawkins view of infanticide in light of this video ==

Investigate Richard Dawkins' view of infanticide in light of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpOhSEA9Yb8 .

Create this article: [[Richard Dawkins and infanticide]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

== abrasive, colossal bore ==

I don't doubt that you can find for any public figure some anonymous internet hack who claims that especially this figure is an idiot, bore, charlatan, etc - but I doubt that such voices - as the unnamed ''"supporters of the Question evolution! campaign"'' - should be quoted in one of the first sections of any article on a public figure.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:17, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

@[[User:Conservative]]: please have an eye on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and look out for vandals! Thanks [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:54, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
::AugustO, you haven't addressed the Alexa data about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:10, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Suggested correction ==

For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "''Daily Mail"'' should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! [[User:PaulDiFoglio|PaulDiFoglio]] 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
::I will make the correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Article Length ==

There's something that sits rather uncomfortably with me: the article on Richard Dawkins is longer than the article on Jesus. I'm sure, in Jesus life of over 2000 years (in human form, anyway) - he must have amassed more worth discussing than in Richard's significantly shorter existence. I mean, Jesus is God. Surely he should be more important and have more time and space devoted to him? This is where it gets really ironic. Wikipedia's article on Jesus is longer than their article on Dawkins. The ratio of their lengths is about the same on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but flipped.

On a related note, the article on Cowardice and Atheism is just a descent into unsubstantiated rambling that serves no real purpose. Sure, discuss the general refusal of secular scientists to debate creationists/ID proponents - but don't suggest there is merely one motive, and that it is cowardice. It is no different than claiming all Hindus are cowards if some Hindus refused to debate some Christians (without any real treatment of their motives). Conservapedia would better serve its purpose by refraining from tiresome attacks.

Let me offer a different perspective: as most scientists regard ID as pseudoscience (Conservapedia's words, not mine), the most typical reason for refusal is in fact a desire not to lend credence to the notion of ID as science or as something that may viably be considered an alternative to evolution. Whether this position is agreed with or not is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is, this is the position they take. Youtube has plenty of videos of atheists debating creationists, both in filmed debates and back-and-forth video submissions from YouTube users.

I would be interested to hear the creationist/ID position on bacterial integration into human cells. For instance, mitochondria are bacteria that have integrated with every cell in our bodies. This is not conjecture - the genome is there, separate from our own, and its release from cells results in an immune response as the mitochondria are recognised as foreign and not self. The evolutionary take is generally that this is a form of rather extreme symbiosis - we gain significantly increased efficiency in producing ATP, the energy currency of the cell (and the bacteria get an easy ride). Is there an ID position on this? I presume there must be.

Before anyone admonishes me for asking these questions, I'd like to point out that I have not disclosed a single personal opinion in the above post, as I don't think they're relevant to my point. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:06, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
:LocoDaw, considering I have evidence of you removing one of my additions to Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_apologetics&diff=prev&oldid=993002 ), I find your complaint about wanting more Christian content at Conservapedia rather odd. By the way, I reverted your censorship. Also, if you are concerned with the lack of more Christian content at Conservapedia why haven't your edits reflected this. I don't see you creating a lot of Christian content. Needless to say, you leave yourself wide open to the charge of hypocrisy. I thought there was a shortage of well referenced online material dealing with atheism and atheist figures in a fairly comprehensive manner on the internet which was not very low quality content (like most content written by atheists exhibits). So I created some content. Judging by the amount of views to my atheism related content, my theory about this shortage was confirmed. Since this time, some of the shortage has been alleviated as this article was created [http://creation.com/atheism atheism] and this resource was created: [http://www.truefreethinker.com/tag/atheism Atheism]
[[File:Shmuley Boteach.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Shmuley Boteach beat Richard Dawkins in a debate according to the student audience. Despite the fact that the debate occurred, Dawkins embarrassed himself by cowardly denying such a debate occurred. See: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]
 
 
(see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RebShmuley.jpg license agreement]) ]]
:As far as the article length, you really haven't made a convincing case that any of the material is irrelevant. For example, [[Daniel Came]], an Oxford atheist, recently commented on the issue of Dawkins and cowardice. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]] So have [[William Lane Craig]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]]. Rabbi Boteach who beat Dawkins in his first debate mentions that Dawkins has not agreed to a second debate. By the way, Dawkins denial that the video taped Boteach debate occurred was a total disgrace and a cowards way of not dealing with a debate he lost. According to the college student audience he lost the Boteach debate. For details see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]

:Furthermore, the material on Women's views of Dawkins was cited by a prominent online magazine through a women atheist author.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Dawkins charge that teaching religion to children is child abuse ==

"Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right
and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. But
while he can accept both child abandonment and childhood sexual abuse with dispassionate fortitude, it
is the horrible crime of raising children in the faith of their fathers that upsets him due to his belief that the fear of Hell is more psychologically damaging than childhood sexual abuse in the long term... Dr. Jonathan R.T. Davidson of the Duke University Medical Center is not quite so blasé about
the psychological damage of sexual abuse, as his 1996 study found that the chances of sexually abused
women attempting suicide were three times higher if they had been sexually abused before the age of
sixteen.28 In the same study, Davidson determined that women who had been sexually assaulted were
six times more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not. As for long-term effects, the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry reported that 67 percent of women over fifty diagnosed with major depression who had been sexually abused as children had made multiple suicide attempts, compared with 27 percent of depressed women over fifty who had not been abused.29 The study also found that middle-aged women who were sexually abused were more likely to suffer at least one other major mental disorder and possess a lifetime history of substance abuse...A report in the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the religious faithful, most of whom were presumably raised religious, were much psychologically healthier than the irreligious. Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. . . In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.30 Vox Day, The Irrational Atheism, Darwin's Judas chapter [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:06, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

The table of contents should be after the first paragraph, not half way down the page ! [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:26, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
::Move up higher. Plus, reinserted some previous material. 06:40, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== Citations ==

I noticed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&curid=103255&diff=1019763&oldid=1019761 this recent edit].

Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?

It seems to me that allowing such citations is an invitation to editors to just go and create their own sources that say whatever they want. Such dishonest behaviour is not very conducive to the production of trustworthy articles. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:53, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::Please tell which data you dispute that is in the cited material. I don't think you can do that. It seems like you just want to engage in the [[genetic fallacy]] which is illogical for you to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:14, 20 November 2012 (EST)
:::I think it is OK because Conservative would not cite a blog that was not reliable. Looking at the material, clearly it is cited to the standard required on Conservapedia. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:19, 20 November 2012 (EST)
::::I didn't say I disputed any particular data. I asked: Is it appropriate for an editor (1) to cite a blog in an article? and (2) if so, is it still ok if it is ''his own'' blog?
::::If you want to respond to my post could you please address what I actually wrote. --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 20:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-12-13T00:52:59Z

ReginaldF: /* The Biblical answer */

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

:Why is the anthropic principle unsatisfactory? [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 09:58, 10 December 2012 (EST)

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: Right. There is no such thing as nothing. The act of philosophy is not a primary mental function, but an abstraction of the practical function which the human mind would have in regard to moving within, and manipulating, the physical world.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 20:51, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:A complex set of deeply implicit presupositions are within any personal perception of the 'unsatisfactoriness' of a philosophical position, such that 'unsatisfactory' is an overall description of the 'subjective' result. The problem, of course, is whether a given set of presuppositions is coherent. Many are not, but which are perceived as coherent by their vaguely understood results in their contrast to their favorite straw men.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:02, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

I believe that the relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death. One's purpose is to create the other. There is such a thing as a healthy forest fire. It destroys dead and decaying trees-causing death-but out of the ashes healthy new saplings spring up, and continue the life of the forest.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:The moral, ethical, and philosophical decay of a population causes the congruent environments to become imbalance toward that population, so that, if the decay is too extreme, then destructive forces impose the death of both young and old alike. But, trees are just trees, so that the young are no more or less worthy than the old, and that, only by the failures of humans (congruent local or planet-wide) can their congruent trees be so diseased as to require their destruction by torrents of flood or fire.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:23, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

The relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death, but not because one's purpose is to create the other. Rather, it's because the latter is the absence of the former. It is not the purpose of death or nothing to create life (that's impossible) and it's not the purpose of life or something to create death or nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

If there was nothing, we simply wouldn't be here to observe it. -- [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]] 18:34, 30 September 2009
:That answers '''how''' we know there's something, not '''why''' there's something. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::But that is based on the assumption that you are observing 'something.' There is the offchance (which I do not believe), that there is nothing, and we do not exist. This is where the axiom comes in. We cannot prove the existence of the universe, we can only assume it does. It takes of stretch of the imagination to even consider it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
::: If we didn't exist, how could we possibly be discussing this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

By addressing the state of "nothing" we are causing something so there will always be something rather than nothing. In the same way one can try to "clear your head" but this fails because in the act of clearing one's head one is filling it with the task of clearing the head/the mind. In this way we must always have something rather than nothing. Even in a vaccuum, the absence of everything is something. [[Bealecr]] 15:21, 30 April 2009

:This seems to be a topic of duelisms. Cold is the absence of heat. Absolute Zero is the absence of movement. Can't we just agree that "nothing" is a theory of the mind, thus making it something again?
:And in a random bit from a while ago, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ebayer_sells_nothing/ someone attempted to sell "absolutely nothing" on eBay]. Oh, and [http://cgi.ebay.com/Box-of-Nothing_W0QQitemZ130334037303QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1e58839537&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 here's a current listing] [[User:EricaS|EricaS]] 19:47, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
::If I don't find it to be the genuine article, I'll do whatever necessary to get my money back! :) Which is the problem, because no one can actually convey (much less possess) such an article. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:30, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== The dysjunct ==

If there is (or were) nothing, then there would be neither an answer to the question, nor the question. But, in so far as there is both 'something' and a questioner apart from that 'something', then there must be answer, and it must not be in that 'something', for, what is a thing worth if it have no one to place a worth upon it, nor even anyone to ask anything about its worth? So, if (or, since) there is something (including a questioner), then there is, therefore, an answer to the question, despite that many people look in the wrong place for an answer and so 'find the question impossible to answer non-trivially'.

Now, if whatever is that which most basically, necessarily exists is non-trivial, then the answer is non-trivial. For, that which necessarily exists, if it be non-trivial, cannot actually create something which is, ''at root'', trivial, since that root is none other than itself. And, what it creates is a reflection---albeit a contingent and synthetic reflection---of itself. Only trivia a can create trivia, and it is doubtful whether trivia can create the non-trivial.

So, in so far as we measure ourselves to be non-trivial, who are but contingent knowers (and, thus, questioners) the answer is more non-trivial, by far, that are we. Something besides ourselves exists, but, that of which we have empirical access is all measured by us to be of less worth than ourselves: rocks and trees, stars and lifeless planets, even gravity, electric lighting, and animals. But, all these things are worth much in our minds, so long as, without us, at least the animals and the plants exist, for such things a reflections of us, however dim. ''Silent Running''.
[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 12:32, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==The Biblical answer==
There is something rather than nothing because it pleases God. Revelation 4:11 says, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (KJV) "You deserve, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power. You have created all things, and for Your pleasure they are and were created." (Conservative Bible) [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Regrettably this is not really an answer because surely God himself is something rather than nothing. Even prior to the creation of the universe one could still then ask, "Why is there something (i.e. God) rather than nothing"? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 21:20, 10 December 2012 (EST)
::It seems that you're trying to set up the problem of [[infinite regression]]. The answer to that is that since God is the Prime Mover, it's meaningless to ask ''why'' God exists. You might as well ask who created God and why. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:46, 11 December 2012 (EST)
:::I'm not trying to "set up" anything. I merely pointed out that if you are attempting to answer the question, ''Why is there something rather than nothing''? it is no answer at all to say "because it pleases God". If God is "something" then you are left with the original question still unanswered. Perhaps what you mean to say is that the question cannot be answered? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 19:52, 12 December 2012 (EST)

==Spiritual Creator==
You can explain the existence of matter, energy, and life from a purely physiological perspective. According to the probabilistic dictates of quantum field theory, even an apparently perfect vacuum seethes with particles and antiparticles popping into and out of existence. With advances in quantum field theory, and physics the day will eventually come when science can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-12-11T02:20:34Z

ReginaldF: /* The Biblical answer */

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

:Why is the anthropic principle unsatisfactory? [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 09:58, 10 December 2012 (EST)

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: Right. There is no such thing as nothing. The act of philosophy is not a primary mental function, but an abstraction of the practical function which the human mind would have in regard to moving within, and manipulating, the physical world.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 20:51, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:A complex set of deeply implicit presupositions are within any personal perception of the 'unsatisfactoriness' of a philosophical position, such that 'unsatisfactory' is an overall description of the 'subjective' result. The problem, of course, is whether a given set of presuppositions is coherent. Many are not, but which are perceived as coherent by their vaguely understood results in their contrast to their favorite straw men.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:02, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

I believe that the relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death. One's purpose is to create the other. There is such a thing as a healthy forest fire. It destroys dead and decaying trees-causing death-but out of the ashes healthy new saplings spring up, and continue the life of the forest.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
:The moral, ethical, and philosophical decay of a population causes the congruent environments to become imbalance toward that population, so that, if the decay is too extreme, then destructive forces impose the death of both young and old alike. But, trees are just trees, so that the young are no more or less worthy than the old, and that, only by the failures of humans (congruent local or planet-wide) can their congruent trees be so diseased as to require their destruction by torrents of flood or fire.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:23, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

The relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death, but not because one's purpose is to create the other. Rather, it's because the latter is the absence of the former. It is not the purpose of death or nothing to create life (that's impossible) and it's not the purpose of life or something to create death or nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

If there was nothing, we simply wouldn't be here to observe it. -- [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]] 18:34, 30 September 2009
:That answers '''how''' we know there's something, not '''why''' there's something. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::But that is based on the assumption that you are observing 'something.' There is the offchance (which I do not believe), that there is nothing, and we do not exist. This is where the axiom comes in. We cannot prove the existence of the universe, we can only assume it does. It takes of stretch of the imagination to even consider it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
::: If we didn't exist, how could we possibly be discussing this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

By addressing the state of "nothing" we are causing something so there will always be something rather than nothing. In the same way one can try to "clear your head" but this fails because in the act of clearing one's head one is filling it with the task of clearing the head/the mind. In this way we must always have something rather than nothing. Even in a vaccuum, the absence of everything is something. [[Bealecr]] 15:21, 30 April 2009

:This seems to be a topic of duelisms. Cold is the absence of heat. Absolute Zero is the absence of movement. Can't we just agree that "nothing" is a theory of the mind, thus making it something again?
:And in a random bit from a while ago, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ebayer_sells_nothing/ someone attempted to sell "absolutely nothing" on eBay]. Oh, and [http://cgi.ebay.com/Box-of-Nothing_W0QQitemZ130334037303QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1e58839537&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 here's a current listing] [[User:EricaS|EricaS]] 19:47, 30 September 2009 (EDT)
::If I don't find it to be the genuine article, I'll do whatever necessary to get my money back! :) Which is the problem, because no one can actually convey (much less possess) such an article. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:30, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== The dysjunct ==

If there is (or were) nothing, then there would be neither an answer to the question, nor the question. But, in so far as there is both 'something' and a questioner apart from that 'something', then there must be answer, and it must not be in that 'something', for, what is a thing worth if it have no one to place a worth upon it, nor even anyone to ask anything about its worth? So, if (or, since) there is something (including a questioner), then there is, therefore, an answer to the question, despite that many people look in the wrong place for an answer and so 'find the question impossible to answer non-trivially'.

Now, if whatever is that which most basically, necessarily exists is non-trivial, then the answer is non-trivial. For, that which necessarily exists, if it be non-trivial, cannot actually create something which is, ''at root'', trivial, since that root is none other than itself. And, what it creates is a reflection---albeit a contingent and synthetic reflection---of itself. Only trivia a can create trivia, and it is doubtful whether trivia can create the non-trivial.

So, in so far as we measure ourselves to be non-trivial, who are but contingent knowers (and, thus, questioners) the answer is more non-trivial, by far, that are we. Something besides ourselves exists, but, that of which we have empirical access is all measured by us to be of less worth than ourselves: rocks and trees, stars and lifeless planets, even gravity, electric lighting, and animals. But, all these things are worth much in our minds, so long as, without us, at least the animals and the plants exist, for such things a reflections of us, however dim. ''Silent Running''.
[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 12:32, 26 January 2012 (EST)
==The Biblical answer==
There is something rather than nothing because it pleases God. Revelation 4:11 says, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (KJV) "You deserve, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power. You have created all things, and for Your pleasure they are and were created." (Conservative Bible) [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:47, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:Regrettably this is not really an answer because surely God himself is something rather than nothing. Even prior to the creation of the universe one could still then ask, "Why is there something (i.e. God) rather than nothing"? --[[User:ReginaldF|ReginaldF]] 21:20, 10 December 2012 (EST)

==Spiritual Creator==
You can explain the existence of matter, energy, and life from a purely physiological perspective. According to the probabilistic dictates of quantum field theory, even an apparently perfect vacuum seethes with particles and antiparticles popping into and out of existence. With advances in quantum field theory, and physics the day will eventually come when science can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-11-21T01:53:25Z

ReginaldF: /* Citations */ new section