Danpech

I think it might be helpful to analyse lesser sorts of questions first.

Why is there something rather than something else? Why is there everything rather than only a lesser set of things. Why do we ask 'why there is something rather than nothing'?

Danpech

Is it a mistake to think that deductive logic can answer why there is something rather than nothing? Yes, it is a mistake. And, this is not the only question which cannot be answered with logic. For just a couple of instances, why is something true rather than everything false; or, how do we deduce that valid deduction is valid?

Nor can these questions be answered by inductive logic. We naturally want to get the the bottom of things, but, there must be a bottom there, and so it is a self-contradiction to pose these kinds of questions. The motive for these questions is questionable.

tempest

Easy. Because you asked. If you would just stop bringing questions into existence I could get back to nothing.

Laurentius

AVE

quote
_____________________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tempest:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Admiral:
Hardest logic puzzle ever;
Why is there something rather than nothing?

The Admiral


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy. Because you asked. If you would just stop bringing questions into existence I could get back to nothing.
_____________________________________________
---------------------------------------------

I loved it.

AVE

tempest

That is excellent. How about:
Being and Nothingness; it doesn't get any better than this.

99Percent

Because if there was nothing you would not be there asking why there is something.

Bill

Technically speaking, that is not a logic puzzle because logic proves that this question cannot be answered with logic. At least, so says <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html" target="_blank">Jim Still's essay on Wittgenstein</a>.

== Bill

Clutch

Because on the assumption that everything is false, then "everything is false" is true. So if everything is false, something is true. Hence the assumption is rejected, by RAA. Logic answers that question. Dudnit?