@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;143064 wrote:Nothing has to exist though. Why would you think that? You're talking about necessity and the only things that are necessary are tautologies. Tautologies are necessarily true. However, they are also empty. It is necessarily true that "it will either rain or not rain tomorrow" but it says nothing about the weather.
I know that "necessity" tend to be analytic statements, and some other things( the notion of identities, which are not relevant here).
In spite of that, i am committed to the proposition that "there had to be something that exist". This does not commit me to:
1. There is a particular thing that exist.
What i am positing is that :
2. There is something x, such that x has the property of self existence.
I grant that whatever x is, x is very mysterious indeed. Personally, i think a candidate for x is that "all worlds exist". i have to admit, i don` t know.
---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 11:31 AM ----------
ughaibu;143066 wrote:But this question is illegitimate, as has been explained to you before, because if there are laws then those laws are random, so there is no"why"!
No! What you mean by "the laws is random" is really the same as saying "the laws are brute facts". There is no contradiction in rejecting that brute. This is the same as saying "the big bang is a brute fact" , but this does not stop people from asking questions.