If nothing existed, there would be, well, 'nothing' to explain.

[I'm With Stupid]

On the contrary, it is often exactly the other way around.

You'll have to explain when it is the other way around.

That interview is from a series of 10 minute videos on the same topic with a group of academics, mostly physicists. Several are agnostic and a couple atheists but the question is explored with and without the God hypothesis.

I said the question is one that assumes intention at the beginning of the universe, I didn't say it was a conscious effort on the part of the interviewer to skew the discussion in that way. That's why in my very first post I said "and by extension plenty of other people." The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is one that has permeated our society as a legitimate point of discussion. My argument is that regardless of the intentions of the people asking the question, it is one that has inherent bias towards one of the answers. It's effectively a loaded question, and something can still be a loaded question without an intention of bias on the part of the questioner.

 

[George Hannah]

You'll have to explain when it is the other way around.
I said the question is one that assumes intention at the beginning of the universe, I didn't say it was a conscious effort on the part of the interviewer to skew the discussion in that way. That's why in my very first post I said "and by extension plenty of other people." The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is one that has permeated our society as a legitimate point of discussion. My argument is that regardless of the intentions of the people asking the question, it is one that has inherent bias towards one of the answers. It's effectively a loaded question, and something can still be a loaded question without an intention of bias on the part of the questioner.

The starting point in addressing the question does not necessarily involve the attribution of the property of intentionality to the question or the answer. It is a loaded question nonetheless - it implies a meaningful context by virtue of its articulation and that is the real dilemma.

 

[BlueHammer85]

where did God come from ?

@George Hannah awaiting... help me understand

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Yes.
This is exactly how our conversation goes in the pub on Friday night.
And we've still solved nothing.

 

[George Hannah]

@George Hannah awaiting... help me understand

"And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Colossians 1:17

 

[BlueHammer85]

"And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Colossians 1:17

oh right. that's that then.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

"And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Colossians 1:17

Those Colossians....they'd say mass.
What are they like.

 

[George Hannah]

Those Colossians....they'd say mass.
What are they like.

I take that for a rhetorical flourish rather than a question.

 

[remember arthur mann]

 

[George Hannah]

Even Richard Dawkins is said to be rethinking his position as the grim reaper get closer.