Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 1:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think I know the answer to this question.

P1: If nothing exists, then no possibilites exist
P2: If no possibilities exist, then nothing can happen
P3: If nothing can happen, then a universe cannot begin to exist
C: A universe couldn't have began to exist, from nothing

However...

P1: If nothing exists, then the laws of logic do not exist
P2: If the laws of logic do not exist, then something can happen, even if no possibilities exist
P3: If something can happen, even if no possibilities exist, then the universe could have began from nothing
c: The universe could have began to exist, from nothing

This just leads me to believe, that the very idea of "nothing" is illogical because "nothing" entails two contradictory conclusions (that a universe couldn't have began to exist from nothing, and that a universe could have began to exist from nothing). This means, then if someone asks the age old question with regards to why there is "something", rather than "nothing", just tell them that the very idea of "nothing" entails contradiction, so "something" is necessary.

If I am wrong, please let me know where.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:23:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mathematics controls everything.

Physics is applied Math.

Chemistry is applied Physics.

Biology is applied Chemistry.

Psychology is applied Biology.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 9:53:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is there an infinite of something, and infinite of nothing, finite of either, finite of both or and infinite of both? Is there any other combination?

We don't understand "nothing" or "infinity" very well. Why is that the case?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 10:49:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 4:23:49 AM, APB wrote:
Mathematics controls everything.

Physics is applied Math.

Chemistry is applied Physics.

Biology is applied Chemistry.

Psychology is applied Biology.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 10:49:39 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:23:49 AM, APB wrote:
Mathematics controls everything.

Physics is applied Math.

Chemistry is applied Physics.

Biology is applied Chemistry.

Psychology is applied Biology.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 6:20:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why is "nothing" being contradictory important? That's the one part I'm confused on since it presupposes that logical laws exist and thus fails to explain somethings existence. If logical laws didn't exist, there would be no problem with the concept of "nothing". It's only because logical laws exist that you can make this argument, so you haven't given a complete explanation.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 6:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 4:30:33 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:49:39 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:23:49 AM, APB wrote:
Mathematics controls everything.

Physics is applied Math.

Chemistry is applied Physics.

Biology is applied Chemistry.

Psychology is applied Biology.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

You're assuming mathematics in your answer, but you haven't explained why such a thing as mathematics exists rather than doesn't exist. Dylan's correct I think.

Also, mathematics applicability breaks down at the quantum level.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 9:25:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No question is deeper than contemplating if no universes ever came to being.

Nobody understands "nothing." We can take a glass and pour out the liquid and say there's nothing in it, but all we are doing is pouring out liquid and pouring in gas. Even in the vacuum of space, we are simply looking at the macro scale of a froth of quantum fluctuations. "Nothing" only has meaning in the abstract, as in I had 3 pizzas, now I have no pizzas.

But wait... does "something" have a meaning? We thought atoms were blobs of matter, but they turned out to be empty. Even the subatomic particles seem to have a certain emptiness to them, and we really don't seem to be made up of "stuff" so much as we are energy, vibrations, etc... All this solid matter around us appears to be absolutely nothing.

My answer would be that there is no such thing as something and nothing. What we have here are abstract concepts - I have 3 pizzas (something), now I have no pizzas (nothing) - and we are extending them over our universe.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 10:55:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 6:23:40 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:30:33 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:49:39 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:23:49 AM, APB wrote:
Mathematics controls everything.

Physics is applied Math.

Chemistry is applied Physics.

Biology is applied Chemistry.

Psychology is applied Biology.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

You're assuming mathematics in your answer, but you haven't explained why such a thing as mathematics exists rather than doesn't exist. Dylan's correct I think.

Also, mathematics applicability breaks down at the quantum level.

No it doesn't. Mathematics is the only reason we understand the quantum level. We just he to use more complicated stuff like Grassman numbers.

Also, maths is abstract, so technically it doesn't "exist". That was my point. Asking why we exist is pointless, as it assumes some absolute, hard line between things that "exist" and things that "don't exist". Our basic understanding of the surrounding world breaks down the closer we examine everything. Who's to say the concept of "existence" won't break down as well? What if there are intermediate/alternative states that we don't recognise because our brains haven't evolved to recognise them?

Imagine there are two universes, both capable of supporting intelligent life, with incompatible laws of physics. Does universe A exist relative to universe B? They have no way of interacting or detecting each other's existence. What about universe C, where the laws of physics allow interaction with both A and B? Or universe D, which interacts with C in a way that stops it interacting with A and B?

What if "nothing" is merely infinite different types of "something"?

I'm babbling, somebody stop me and provide feedback.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:20:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 4:30:33 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:49:39 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:23:49 AM, APB wrote:
Mathematics controls everything.

Physics is applied Math.

Chemistry is applied Physics.

Biology is applied Chemistry.

Psychology is applied Biology.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

I was not bolstering the notion that it wasn't; my grief was for the circle-logic used to explain why the universe must exist.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:25:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 10:55:13 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 6:23:40 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:30:33 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/7/2013 10:49:39 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2013 4:23:49 AM, APB wrote:
Mathematics controls everything.

Physics is applied Math.

Chemistry is applied Physics.

Biology is applied Chemistry.

Psychology is applied Biology.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

You're assuming mathematics in your answer, but you haven't explained why such a thing as mathematics exists rather than doesn't exist. Dylan's correct I think.

Also, mathematics applicability breaks down at the quantum level.

No it doesn't. Mathematics is the only reason we understand the quantum level. We just he to use more complicated stuff like Grassman numbers.

Explain. (And I thought we were still trying to understand the quantum level)

Also, maths is abstract, so technically it doesn't "exist". That was my point.

How can something that does not exist control everything that does exist?

Asking why we exist is pointless, as it assumes some absolute, hard line between things that "exist" and things that "don't exist".

5 sided squares don't exist. 4 sided squares do exist though. I don't see anything hazy between the two. And if nothing existed at all, there would clearly be no drawing any line, so why can we draw any type of line?

Our basic understanding of the surrounding world breaks down the closer we examine everything. Who's to say the concept of "existence" won't break down as well? What if there are intermediate/alternative states that we don't recognise because our brains haven't evolved to recognise them?

This is rather hypothetical.


Imagine there are two universes, both capable of supporting intelligent life, with incompatible laws of physics. Does universe A exist relative to universe B? They have no way of interacting or detecting each other's existence. What about universe C, where the laws of physics allow interaction with both A and B? Or universe D, which interacts with C in a way that stops it interacting with A and B?

What if "nothing" is merely infinite different types of "something"?

I'm babbling, somebody stop me and provide feedback.

Yes, "what if?" "What ifs" are fine but there's no particular reason to believe in the "if" so I don't see these hypothetical ponderings as very useful the current discussion.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:32:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What if "nothing" is merely infinite different types of "something"?

That seems to be the only logical assumption. After Ptolemy, we broke the spherical boundary of our universe.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:17:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ phantom

Of course we don't know everything about the quantum level, but we're not clueless either.

5-sided squares do exist, we call them pentagons.

What if our understanding of "nothing" is flawed? We've evolved in a universe with "something", there's no way to conceive what "nothing" is like. I know it's an argument from ignorance, but I'm really just throwing out ideas instead of trying to prove anything.

The whole thread is hypothetical.

The discussion itself isn't "useful" as we have no way of answering those questions at the present time - or possibly even at all. But seeing as how we're discussing it anyway, the nature of "nothing" is highly relevant.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:28:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:17:42 AM, APB wrote:
@ phantom

Of course we don't know everything about the quantum level, but we're not clueless either.

Well that's not what I meant obviously. You said we understand the quantum level and through mathematics. I didn't know we understood it (I guess we still don't) and I don't know of the mathematics you mentioned. But the more important point is mathematics applicability to the quantum realm.

5-sided squares do exist, we call them pentagons.

Pentagons aren't squares. Needless point anyway. We can indeed draw clear lines between certain things that do and don't exist. Square circles as, another example, clearly don't exist.

What if our understanding of "nothing" is flawed? We've evolved in a universe with "something", there's no way to conceive what "nothing" is like. I know it's an argument from ignorance, but I'm really just throwing out ideas instead of trying to prove anything.

I think it's mostly sufficient to be able to grasp the idea of "something". We know what "something" is and could conceive of it not being. Its "not being" could be labelled as "nothing" even if we can't completely grasp the concept of nothing. We could see anything that is as having not been, so really we can just apply our questioning to everything.

The whole thread is hypothetical.

How's that?

The discussion itself isn't "useful" as we have no way of answering those questions at the present time - or possibly even at all. But seeing as how we're discussing it anyway, the nature of "nothing" is highly relevant.

You stated before, "the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry". That sounded like you thought you had an explanation but now you're saying we have no way of answering it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 3:36:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@ phantom

1. Grassmann numbers anticommute with each other, but not with real numbers. If A and B are Grassmann numbers and C is a real number, then:

A x B = -B x A

A x C = C x A

A x A = 0

I don't fully understand them, but that's the gist. They're used for calculations regarding fermionic fields, etc. Mathematics is he driving force behind everything in theoretical physics.

2. You mean we can't represent them. There may well be an equation that can describe the counter-intuitive properties of square circles.

3. Had a long response. Complicated, boring, semantics, contradicted myself and realised my argument can be changed to the more usable:

"If the laws of nature are different, our logical concepts of existence, etc. will not hold, and thus we cannot truly simulate 'nothing' in a thought experiment."

Thus, the thread is pointless.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:12:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 9:53:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
We don't understand "nothing" or "infinity" very well. Why is that the case?

What is with this trend to proclaim that we "don't understand nothing"? It's just such nonsense. Nothing is just the absence of anything. It is not anything at all. To say that there is nothing is just to say that all existential propositions are false. Nothing is nada, zilch. What about that is so hard to understand? "Nothing" is NOT a quantum vacuum, nor is it empty space, nor is it some state of affairs or some state with properties. Nothing is just not anything at all!

And to ask why there is something rather than nothing is just to ask why it isn't the case that existential propositions (e.g. a car exists, a dog exists, a house exists, a planet exists, etc.) are false.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:14:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:12:21 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:53:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
We don't understand "nothing" or "infinity" very well. Why is that the case?

What is with this trend to proclaim that we "don't understand nothing"? It's just such nonsense. Nothing is just the absence of anything. It is not anything at all. To say that there is nothing is just to say that all existential propositions are false. Nothing is nada, zilch. What about that is so hard to understand? "Nothing" is NOT a quantum vacuum, nor is it empty space, nor is it some state of affairs or some state with properties. Nothing is just not anything at all!

And to ask why there is something rather than nothing is just to ask why it isn't the case that existential propositions (e.g. a car exists, a dog exists, a house exists, a planet exists, etc.) are false.

We don't understand true "nothing" because we have never experienced it. All arguments about causation are inductive logical arguments. Since we can assert nothing about nothing except that it's nothing, we can't really make claims.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:18:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:14:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:12:21 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:53:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
We don't understand "nothing" or "infinity" very well. Why is that the case?

What is with this trend to proclaim that we "don't understand nothing"? It's just such nonsense. Nothing is just the absence of anything. It is not anything at all. To say that there is nothing is just to say that all existential propositions are false. Nothing is nada, zilch. What about that is so hard to understand? "Nothing" is NOT a quantum vacuum, nor is it empty space, nor is it some state of affairs or some state with properties. Nothing is just not anything at all!

And to ask why there is something rather than nothing is just to ask why it isn't the case that existential propositions (e.g. a car exists, a dog exists, a house exists, a planet exists, etc.) are false.

We don't understand true "nothing" because we have never experienced it. All arguments about causation are inductive logical arguments. Since we can assert nothing about nothing except that it's nothing, we can't really make claims.

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:23:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:18:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:34:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:18:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.

To say that "nothing can come from nothing" is not to ascribe an attribute or property to nothing at all; this is just to say that "nothing" lacks the property or attribute of being any type of cause at all (be it efficient, material, formal, etc.). Which makes perfect sense, seeing as how nothing cannot have any properties whatsoever for there isn't anything to have properties in the first place. It helps to think of nothing, I think, in an Aristotelian-Thomistic manner. "Nothing" has no potentiality whatsoever as there is nothing for there to have potentiality. Thus there is not anything about nothing which can be actualized. Ergo, nothing has no causal powers whatsoever for there is not anything for there to have them. But what keeps me up at night is why it must take several paragraphs to explain this simple, childish banality to the atheist du jour. Nothing is just so simple and banal concept that I daresay even those who are not at all familiar with philosophy can easily grasp. But not the atheist du jour. Instead, they imbibe the intellectual offal that emanates from the putrid and damaged gray matter of public imbeciles like Lawrence Krauss...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:38:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:34:01 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:18:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.

To say that "nothing can come from nothing" is not to ascribe an attribute or property to nothing at all; this is just to say that "nothing" lacks the property or attribute of being any type of cause at all (be it efficient, material, formal, etc.). Which makes perfect sense, seeing as how nothing cannot have any properties whatsoever for there isn't anything to have properties in the first place. It helps to think of nothing, I think, in an Aristotelian-Thomistic manner. "Nothing" has no potentiality whatsoever as there is nothing for there to have potentiality. Thus there is not anything about nothing which can be actualized. Ergo, nothing has no causal powers whatsoever for there is not anything for there to have them. But what keeps me up at night is why it must take several paragraphs to explain this simple, childish banality to the atheist du jour. Nothing is just so simple and banal concept that I daresay even those who are not at all familiar with philosophy can easily grasp. But not the atheist du jour. Instead, they imbibe the intellectual offal that emanates from the putrid and damaged gray matter of public imbeciles like Lawrence Krauss...

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:41:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why not!

also... b/c I have hands.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:48:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:38:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:34:01 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:23:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:18:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.

To say that "nothing can come from nothing" is not to ascribe an attribute or property to nothing at all; this is just to say that "nothing" lacks the property or attribute of being any type of cause at all (be it efficient, material, formal, etc.). Which makes perfect sense, seeing as how nothing cannot have any properties whatsoever for there isn't anything to have properties in the first place. It helps to think of nothing, I think, in an Aristotelian-Thomistic manner. "Nothing" has no potentiality whatsoever as there is nothing for there to have potentiality. Thus there is not anything about nothing which can be actualized. Ergo, nothing has no causal powers whatsoever for there is not anything for there to have them. But what keeps me up at night is why it must take several paragraphs to explain this simple, childish banality to the atheist du jour. Nothing is just so simple and banal concept that I daresay even those who are not at all familiar with philosophy can easily grasp. But not the atheist du jour. Instead, they imbibe the intellectual offal that emanates from the putrid and damaged gray matter of public imbeciles like Lawrence Krauss...

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.

All these pseudo-philosophical and ambiguous claims that I somehow have no "reference to reality" and the like really serve as nothing but a waste of bandwidth and burdens to conversation. I see lot of text in this reply but I don't see any substantial point being made here, much less anything I can meaningfully respond to.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 4:28:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is it with trying to describe the blatantly obvious in the most complex terms possible? What is the point in pondering "nothing?" What possible insite could come from it. There would be no need to even have insite. There is no need to even ask the question.

Ok, now that I have said it, school me on "nothing." Wait, you don't have to, there is "nothing" to teach.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 4:38:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:48:36 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:38:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.


All these pseudo-philosophical and ambiguous claims that I somehow have no "reference to reality" and the like really serve as nothing but a waste of bandwidth and burdens to conversation. I see lot of text in this reply but I don't see any substantial point being made here, much less anything I can meaningfully respond to.

I like how you ignore perfectly legitimate points, such as "we can't even show that "true nothing" isn't a contradiction in possibility", by pretending no points were made at all. That's classy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:20:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 6:20:57 PM, phantom wrote:
Why is "nothing" being contradictory important? That's the one part I'm confused on since it presupposes that logical laws exist and thus fails to explain somethings existence. If logical laws didn't exist, there would be no problem with the concept of "nothing". It's only because logical laws exist that you can make this argument, so you haven't given a complete explanation.

Well, I think the point is, that notion which entails a logical contradiction, could not ever have been, is not, and will not ever be the case. Thus, if "nothing" is contradictory, that means there has always been something. You are basically arguing that if the laws of logic don't exist, then illogical things can happen, so who cares if it is illogical....right? Well, This is true....Assuming "Nothing" was actually the case though, which is the problem. If we operate around the assumption that logical contradictions do not exist in reality, then if "nothing" = no laws of logic, then "nothing" is an impossibility.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:22:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 4:38:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:48:36 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:38:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.


All these pseudo-philosophical and ambiguous claims that I somehow have no "reference to reality" and the like really serve as nothing but a waste of bandwidth and burdens to conversation. I see lot of text in this reply but I don't see any substantial point being made here, much less anything I can meaningfully respond to.

I like how you ignore perfectly legitimate points, such as "we can't even show that "true nothing" isn't a contradiction in possibility", by pretending no points were made at all. That's classy.

You're just throwing around useless possibilities and not defending them. Apart from that, you're uttering muddleheaded and pseudo-philosophical ambiguities that I have no interest whatsoever to decipher. Maybe that's not gentile of me but, hey, crucify me #badjoke
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:23:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 4:28:30 PM, sadolite wrote:
What is it with trying to describe the blatantly obvious in the most complex terms possible? What is the point in pondering "nothing?" What possible insite could come from it. There would be no need to even have insite. There is no need to even ask the question.

Ok, now that I have said it, school me on "nothing." Wait, you don't have to, there is "nothing" to teach.

Is that directed at me?