0

Absolute non-existence has nothing in it that can be changed or cause the change. So how can something (universe) just appear.

Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 35,764
  • 3
  • 35
  • 79
Izzy
  • 1
  • Absolute non-existence surely has plenty in it that can be changed, from non-existence to existence, and what does it need a cause for if it can change uncaused? How? Just so. That it "feels" dissatisfying does not make it impossible. That we do not see it happen around us does not make it impossible either. And arguments against it are always circular, they just rephrase the impossibility as an assumption. – Conifold Aug 15 '21 at 08:30
  • Maybe there is no "non existence"... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Aug 15 '21 at 11:39
  • @Conifold, "Absolute non-existence surely has plenty in it" is a logical contradiction. It is basically the same as "where nothing exists things exist". – David Gudeman Aug 15 '21 at 16:46
  • @DavidGudeman No more than "unicorns have horns on them". Drawing logical conclusions from surface grammar is a bad idea, even you attached "exists" to "nothing". – Conifold Aug 15 '21 at 20:22
  • @Conifold, the grammar is irrelevant. You asserted that nothing exists and that something exists at the same time. This is a logical contradiction. – David Gudeman Aug 15 '21 at 20:48
  • @DavidGudeman "Nothing exists" is your phrasing, and "absolute non-existence surely has plenty in it that can be changed" is a platitude. Something is other than nothing, so going from one to the other is a change, and so the former "has plenty to be changed" by common turn of phrase. Unless you read into "has" and other copulas what isn't there. – Conifold Aug 15 '21 at 20:57
  • @Izzy 1. Why do you assume that "absolute non-existence" is a possible state of the universe? 2. Why do you assume it was previous to existence? 3. Considering that causality is just a mental habit (see Hume/Russell), why do you assume that changes need causes? 4. Considering that an atomic leap ten years earlier has an effect on an earthquake (a minimal, infinitesimal effect, but an effect anyway), what counts as a cause? 5. Considering that Wheeler's experiments show that present facts can change past facts, can you trust causality as a rule to understand the origin of the universe? – RodolfoAP Aug 16 '21 at 06:27

2 Answers2

0

When we say "Something comes from non existence.", that implies the non existence is existence.

Also, since every cause itself becomes an effect and an effect is the cause in a changed form, 'that something' must be the cause. That can also imply, if there is no cause, no emergence of something. See the hyperlink in my answer to the following question. You will get a clear explanation from it.

Cause and effect

How can something (universe) just appear.

The following link will help you to know the significance of consciousness and the truth about the phenomenal transient world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

SonOfThought
  • 3,507
  • 9
  • 18
0

Can something come from non existence without a cause?

Strictly speaking, and given the wording of the question, the answer is no. The phrase "X comes from" implies that X comes from something that exists, and, presumably, "non existence" is not something that exists.

Maybe we can nonetheless answer the question saying that reality by definition has no cause. Reality could not have a cause because the cause by definition is not any part of the effect so that the cause of reality, if there was one, would not be a part of reality, which by definition implies that it would not exist. So any cause of reality could not possibly exist, which means that reality is not caused.

So something exists which is not caused.

Speakpigeon
  • 5,522
  • 1
  • 10
  • 22