Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Essence of Nothing

KevinW
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:53:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am challenging someone to debate about "nothing" or "nothingness" with me. Can we ever describe nothing and still call it "nothing" or is it "something." I contend there is always "something" exists. My opponent will contend one can have nothing outside reality. This debate is theoretical in nature and applies to philosophy, religion, mathematics and psychology.

Please write to me first to declare interest and negotiate rules and schedule a predetermined starting date. Look forward to receiving responses!

Kevin
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:27:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 7:53:21 PM, KevinW wrote:
I am challenging someone to debate about "nothing" or "nothingness" with me. Can we ever describe nothing and still call it "nothing" or is it "something." I contend there is always "something" exists. My opponent will contend one can have nothing outside reality. This debate is theoretical in nature and applies to philosophy, religion, mathematics and psychology.

Please write to me first to declare interest and negotiate rules and schedule a predetermined starting date. Look forward to receiving responses!

Kevin

What does "one can have nothing outside reality" mean?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 9:40:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why don't you just initiate an open debate challenge and see if somebody accepts it? I might accept it. I'm afraid the debate might get really semantical, though. I'd like to keep it short if I accept it. Like maybe 4000 words at the most, and three rounds.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 7:41:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That sounds like a good debate to me except that I'd take a stance like yours. I would say that nothing is in fact a tangible thing. I would also say that everything is nothing. But that's highly semantical.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 3:34:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The resolution is too easy to affirm. Always means "at all times" and there has never been a time when the universe hasn't existed (assuming all space-time is inherit within the singularity, which is reasonable). Thus, even with a finite past, we can confirm that something has always existed.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 7:51:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

It's an interesting phenomenon isn't it? Nothing just isn't that hard to conceptualize, but a lot of people want to make it so much harder than it needs to be.

A simple mathematical infinity does the same thing, a lot of folks become completely discombobulated pondering 1/3 as a decimal.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 9:32:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 7:41:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
That sounds like a good debate to me except that I'd take a stance like yours. I would say that nothing is in fact a tangible thing. I would also say that everything is nothing. But that's highly semantical.

The Fool: Is that a challenge?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:20:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The essence of "nothing" and the essence of "everything" are in fact two opposing degrees of the same essence. That essence can be referred to by different semantic labels, but I will use the label of "substance". These two opposing poles of substance are a duality of natural law which creates the prince of pure mathematics and it provides us with the ability to make calculations. In the physical aspect of ourselves, in our physiology, this ability operates in correspondence with the left side of our brain.

The opposing nature of this force is the other half of the duality, which provides us the ability to imagine and ask questions. One side asks, the other answers. One side imagines, the other calculates. One extreme is completely empty and ready for substance, one extreme is completely full of substance and ready to empty into nothingness.

Neither extreme is the truth of natural law, the duality of substance is the truth here on this subject.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:17:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.

Perhaps. It still inconceivable to think that even that immaterial, could exist if there was absolutely nothing. In fact, if you are equating the immaterial with nothing then this should put your theism in serious doubt lol Anyway, "absolute nothingness" means just that: Complete non-being. I don't think a proper definition should be "the absence of everything but metaphysical immaterial laws restricting something from beginning to exist". Either way, it's pretty crazy to think about.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:17:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.

Perhaps. It still inconceivable to think that even that immaterial, could exist if there was absolutely nothing. In fact, if you are equating the immaterial with nothing then this should put your theism in serious doubt lol Anyway, "absolute nothingness" means just that: Complete non-being. I don't think a proper definition should be "the absence of everything but metaphysical immaterial laws restricting something from beginning to exist". Either way, it's pretty crazy to think about.

Good point. Anyways, as you're not doubt aware, the theist doesn't maintain that there could have been nothing, but there isn't, and the reason is theism, but rather that there could not have been nothing, and the reason is theism.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:36:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing.

If you are you asking if there was nothing, would something still exist....I'm pretty sure the answer is no, by definition.

Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

There would be nothing to apply a metaphysical principle to, and no human to come up with the metaphysical principle anyway.

Never the less, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it since there is something rather than nothing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:55:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:29:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:17:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.

Perhaps. It still inconceivable to think that even that immaterial, could exist if there was absolutely nothing. In fact, if you are equating the immaterial with nothing then this should put your theism in serious doubt lol Anyway, "absolute nothingness" means just that: Complete non-being. I don't think a proper definition should be "the absence of everything but metaphysical immaterial laws restricting something from beginning to exist". Either way, it's pretty crazy to think about.

Good point. Anyways, as you're not doubt aware, the theist doesn't maintain that there could have been nothing, but there isn't, and the reason is theism, but rather that there could not have been nothing, and the reason is theism.

Obviously theists do not believe there could have ever been "nothing", they believe God is necessary.

The point is that theists like William Lane Craig seem to go around claiming that anyone who denies the premise that "something cannot come from nothing" is holding absurd position (When he says this, he means absolutely "nothing"). My question is simply, is that really true that not accepting this metaphysical principle is absurd? Maybe it could be, that thinking "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical restrictions that would not even exist if there was "nothing", is actually the absurd position.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:57:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:36:37 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing.

If you are you asking if there was nothing, would something still exist....I'm pretty sure the answer is no, by definition.

What do you mean "by definition"? Nothing means nothing. It doesn't mean nothing could never come out of nothing. You are confusing a definition, with a principle using that definition.


Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

There would be nothing to apply a metaphysical principle to, and no human to come up with the metaphysical principle anyway.

Never the less, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it since there is something rather than nothing.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:07:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:57:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:36:37 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing.

If you are you asking if there was nothing, would something still exist....I'm pretty sure the answer is no, by definition.

What do you mean "by definition"? Nothing means nothing. It doesn't mean nothing could never come out of nothing. You are confusing a definition, with a principle using that definition.

Yes, by definition, nothing means nothing, so by definition, logical and metaphysical restrictions would not be lingering around,, by definition, they wouldn't exist, so they wouldn't be lingering around. I'm not confusing anything, nothing means nothing, so nothing could be lingering around.

It's not really that hard to grasp.

Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

There would be nothing to apply a metaphysical principle to, and no human to come up with the metaphysical principle anyway.

Never the less, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it since there is something rather than nothing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:10:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 8:07:15 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:57:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:36:37 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing.

If you are you asking if there was nothing, would something still exist....I'm pretty sure the answer is no, by definition.

What do you mean "by definition"? Nothing means nothing. It doesn't mean nothing could never come out of nothing. You are confusing a definition, with a principle using that definition.

Yes, by definition, nothing means nothing, so by definition, logical and metaphysical restrictions would not be lingering around,, by definition, they wouldn't exist, so they wouldn't be lingering around. I'm not confusing anything, nothing means nothing, so nothing could be lingering around.

It's not really that hard to grasp.

You just contradicted yourself, and your argument is self-refuting. At first you say that if there was nothing, something couldn't occur. Now you are conceding that no metaphysical restrictions would exist (which would prevent something coming from nothing), if there was nothing. Well, if no metaphysical restrictions would exist, then what would prevent something?


Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

There would be nothing to apply a metaphysical principle to, and no human to come up with the metaphysical principle anyway.

Never the less, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it since there is something rather than nothing.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:25:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 8:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 8:07:15 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:57:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:36:37 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing.

If you are you asking if there was nothing, would something still exist....I'm pretty sure the answer is no, by definition.

What do you mean "by definition"? Nothing means nothing. It doesn't mean nothing could never come out of nothing. You are confusing a definition, with a principle using that definition.

Yes, by definition, nothing means nothing, so by definition, logical and metaphysical restrictions would not be lingering around,, by definition, they wouldn't exist, so they wouldn't be lingering around. I'm not confusing anything, nothing means nothing, so nothing could be lingering around.

It's not really that hard to grasp.

You just contradicted yourself, and your argument is self-refuting.

Nope, I did not contradict myself.

At first you say that if there was nothing, something couldn't occur.

Nope, I did not say that.

Now you are conceding that no metaphysical restrictions would exist

I'm not sure why that is a concession, I said nothing means nothing, by definition.

(which would prevent something coming from nothing), if there was nothing. Well, if no metaphysical restrictions would exist, then what would prevent something?

By definition, nothing means nothing, which precludes the existence of something, by definition.

Why are struggling so hard with the definition of nothing, it doesn't mean something, it means nothing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:27:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 8:25:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 8:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 8:07:15 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:57:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:36:37 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing.

If you are you asking if there was nothing, would something still exist....I'm pretty sure the answer is no, by definition.

What do you mean "by definition"? Nothing means nothing. It doesn't mean nothing could never come out of nothing. You are confusing a definition, with a principle using that definition.

Yes, by definition, nothing means nothing, so by definition, logical and metaphysical restrictions would not be lingering around,, by definition, they wouldn't exist, so they wouldn't be lingering around. I'm not confusing anything, nothing means nothing, so nothing could be lingering around.

It's not really that hard to grasp.

You just contradicted yourself, and your argument is self-refuting.

Nope, I did not contradict myself.

At first you say that if there was nothing, something couldn't occur.

Nope, I did not say that.

Now you are conceding that no metaphysical restrictions would exist

I'm not sure why that is a concession, I said nothing means nothing, by definition.

(which would prevent something coming from nothing), if there was nothing. Well, if no metaphysical restrictions would exist, then what would prevent something?

By definition, nothing means nothing, which precludes the existence of something, by definition.

Why are struggling so hard with the definition of nothing, it doesn't mean something, it means nothing.

I know it means nothing, I never said it meant something lol
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 8:57:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 8:27:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 8:25:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 8:10:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 8:07:15 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:57:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:36:37 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing.

If you are you asking if there was nothing, would something still exist....I'm pretty sure the answer is no, by definition.

What do you mean "by definition"? Nothing means nothing. It doesn't mean nothing could never come out of nothing. You are confusing a definition, with a principle using that definition.

Yes, by definition, nothing means nothing, so by definition, logical and metaphysical restrictions would not be lingering around,, by definition, they wouldn't exist, so they wouldn't be lingering around. I'm not confusing anything, nothing means nothing, so nothing could be lingering around.

It's not really that hard to grasp.

You just contradicted yourself, and your argument is self-refuting.

Nope, I did not contradict myself.

At first you say that if there was nothing, something couldn't occur.

Nope, I did not say that.

Now you are conceding that no metaphysical restrictions would exist

I'm not sure why that is a concession, I said nothing means nothing, by definition.

(which would prevent something coming from nothing), if there was nothing. Well, if no metaphysical restrictions would exist, then what would prevent something?

By definition, nothing means nothing, which precludes the existence of something, by definition.

Why are struggling so hard with the definition of nothing, it doesn't mean something, it means nothing.

I know it means nothing, I never said it meant something lol

OK, so you know nothing means nothing, and so you know nothing would be lingering around, and so there wouldn't be something, by definition.

And there is nothing contradicting itself in that, and there is nothing self-refuting about that, and there is nothing about that that confuses definitions with principles, right?

We should check the record books, you may have set some kind of record for how long it took to agree that nothing means nothing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:01:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:29:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:17:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.

Perhaps. It still inconceivable to think that even that immaterial, could exist if there was absolutely nothing. In fact, if you are equating the immaterial with nothing then this should put your theism in serious doubt lol Anyway, "absolute nothingness" means just that: Complete non-being. I don't think a proper definition should be "the absence of everything but metaphysical immaterial laws restricting something from beginning to exist". Either way, it's pretty crazy to think about.

Good point. Anyways, as you're not doubt aware, the theist doesn't maintain that there could have been nothing, but there isn't, and the reason is theism, but rather that there could not have been nothing, and the reason is theism.

Obviously theists do not believe there could have ever been "nothing", they believe God is necessary.

The point is that theists like William Lane Craig seem to go around claiming that anyone who denies the premise that "something cannot come from nothing" is holding absurd position (When he says this, he means absolutely "nothing"). My question is simply, is that really true that not accepting this metaphysical principle is absurd? Maybe it could be, that thinking "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical restrictions that would not even exist if there was "nothing", is actually the absurd position.

Well, prima facie, it seems to be rather absurd to think that something could come form nothing. Picture, if you will, an utter absence of anything and everything. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. Now picture space, time, energy and matter simply "pop" into existence. Seems absurd, right? A more philosophically dense matter of responding to this would be that 'nothing' has no potentials (as there isn't anything to have potentials) and so has nothing to actualize. Hence, the idea of there actualizing anything from a state of non-potentiality is likewise absurd.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:38:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:01:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:29:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:17:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.

Perhaps. It still inconceivable to think that even that immaterial, could exist if there was absolutely nothing. In fact, if you are equating the immaterial with nothing then this should put your theism in serious doubt lol Anyway, "absolute nothingness" means just that: Complete non-being. I don't think a proper definition should be "the absence of everything but metaphysical immaterial laws restricting something from beginning to exist". Either way, it's pretty crazy to think about.

Good point. Anyways, as you're not doubt aware, the theist doesn't maintain that there could have been nothing, but there isn't, and the reason is theism, but rather that there could not have been nothing, and the reason is theism.

Obviously theists do not believe there could have ever been "nothing", they believe God is necessary.

The point is that theists like William Lane Craig seem to go around claiming that anyone who denies the premise that "something cannot come from nothing" is holding absurd position (When he says this, he means absolutely "nothing"). My question is simply, is that really true that not accepting this metaphysical principle is absurd? Maybe it could be, that thinking "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical restrictions that would not even exist if there was "nothing", is actually the absurd position.

Well, prima facie, it seems to be rather absurd to think that something could come form nothing. Picture, if you will, an utter absence of anything and everything. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. Now picture space, time, energy and matter simply "pop" into existence. Seems absurd, right?

Not really. If there is absolutely nothing, there would be nothing to stop such a thing from happening.

A more philosophically dense matter of responding to this would be that 'nothing' has no potentials (as there isn't anything to have potentials) and so has nothing to actualize. Hence, the idea of there actualizing anything from a state of non-potentiality is likewise absurd.

No potential also means:

No potential for a universe that does not begin to exist spontaneously

It works both ways. The universe is both necessary and impossible if there is nothing.

Regardless, the argument your are providing here is 100% based on the existence of the laws of logic. If there was nothing, this would include the laws of logic and the restrictions it entails that you are mentioning right now. This makes your point rather trivial, no?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 6:03:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:38:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:01:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:29:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:17:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.

Perhaps. It still inconceivable to think that even that immaterial, could exist if there was absolutely nothing. In fact, if you are equating the immaterial with nothing then this should put your theism in serious doubt lol Anyway, "absolute nothingness" means just that: Complete non-being. I don't think a proper definition should be "the absence of everything but metaphysical immaterial laws restricting something from beginning to exist". Either way, it's pretty crazy to think about.

Good point. Anyways, as you're not doubt aware, the theist doesn't maintain that there could have been nothing, but there isn't, and the reason is theism, but rather that there could not have been nothing, and the reason is theism.

Obviously theists do not believe there could have ever been "nothing", they believe God is necessary.

The point is that theists like William Lane Craig seem to go around claiming that anyone who denies the premise that "something cannot come from nothing" is holding absurd position (When he says this, he means absolutely "nothing"). My question is simply, is that really true that not accepting this metaphysical principle is absurd? Maybe it could be, that thinking "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical restrictions that would not even exist if there was "nothing", is actually the absurd position.

Well, prima facie, it seems to be rather absurd to think that something could come form nothing. Picture, if you will, an utter absence of anything and everything. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. Now picture space, time, energy and matter simply "pop" into existence. Seems absurd, right?

Not really. If there is absolutely nothing, there would be nothing to stop such a thing from happening.

And nothing to make such a thing happen, and nothing happening.

A more philosophically dense matter of responding to this would be that 'nothing' has no potentials (as there isn't anything to have potentials) and so has nothing to actualize. Hence, the idea of there actualizing anything from a state of non-potentiality is likewise absurd.

No potential also means:

No potential for a universe that does not begin to exist spontaneously

It works both ways. The universe is both necessary and impossible if there is nothing.

Yeah, but I think we all agreed that there isn't nothing, there is something.

Regardless, the argument your are providing here is 100% based on the existence of the laws of logic. If there was nothing, this would include the laws of logic and the restrictions it entails that you are mentioning right now. This makes your point rather trivial, no?

You started the thread about nothing, are you now saying anything anyone says about nothing is trivial? Is the thread itself trivial?

Nothing means nothing, it doesn't mean nothing except magic, unless you can make the case that nothing means nothing plus magic, then I don't see how you can argue that something can come from nothing.

The title of your thread is "The Essence of Nothing", is your argument that the essence of nothing is magic? Do you think nothing has magical qualities?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:20:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 6:03:33 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:38:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:01:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:29:45 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:17:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:45:18 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/30/2013 5:51:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:49:41 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
I'm still not sure what the puzzlement over nothing is. Nothing is just not anything whatsoever. It is the negation of all existential claims. Zilch. Absolutamente nada. -(there exists).

The question is, do the laws of metaphysics and logic hold if nothing does? It seems weird that these logical and metaphysical restrictions would be lingering around if there was nothing. Any metaphysical principle a human can come up with wouldn't seem to apply to nothing, if there was ever nothing.

That's an interesting question. I guess that one could say that the laws of logic are abstractions or simply exist immaterially.

Perhaps. It still inconceivable to think that even that immaterial, could exist if there was absolutely nothing. In fact, if you are equating the immaterial with nothing then this should put your theism in serious doubt lol Anyway, "absolute nothingness" means just that: Complete non-being. I don't think a proper definition should be "the absence of everything but metaphysical immaterial laws restricting something from beginning to exist". Either way, it's pretty crazy to think about.

Good point. Anyways, as you're not doubt aware, the theist doesn't maintain that there could have been nothing, but there isn't, and the reason is theism, but rather that there could not have been nothing, and the reason is theism.

Obviously theists do not believe there could have ever been "nothing", they believe God is necessary.

The point is that theists like William Lane Craig seem to go around claiming that anyone who denies the premise that "something cannot come from nothing" is holding absurd position (When he says this, he means absolutely "nothing"). My question is simply, is that really true that not accepting this metaphysical principle is absurd? Maybe it could be, that thinking "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical restrictions that would not even exist if there was "nothing", is actually the absurd position.

Well, prima facie, it seems to be rather absurd to think that something could come form nothing. Picture, if you will, an utter absence of anything and everything. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. Now picture space, time, energy and matter simply "pop" into existence. Seems absurd, right?

Not really. If there is absolutely nothing, there would be nothing to stop such a thing from happening.

And nothing to make such a thing happen, and nothing happening.

Nothing would prevent such a thing from happening, so something happens lol It works both ways.


A more philosophically dense matter of responding to this would be that 'nothing' has no potentials (as there isn't anything to have potentials) and so has nothing to actualize. Hence, the idea of there actualizing anything from a state of non-potentiality is likewise absurd.

No potential also means:

No potential for a universe that does not begin to exist spontaneously

It works both ways. The universe is both necessary and impossible if there is nothing.

Yeah, but I think we all agreed that there isn't nothing, there is something.

I'm taking about if there ever was nothing, nobody is saying there is nothing now.


Regardless, the argument your are providing here is 100% based on the existence of the laws of logic. If there was nothing, this would include the laws of logic and the restrictions it entails that you are mentioning right now. This makes your point rather trivial, no?

You started the thread about nothing, are you now saying anything anyone says about nothing is trivial? Is the thread itself trivial?

I didn't start this thread, where's your head at boy? Also my point is that the idea of "nothing" is logically contradictory, but it would not have to adhere to laws logic anyway.

Nothing means nothing, it doesn't mean nothing except magic, unless you can make the case that nothing means nothing plus magic, then I don't see how you can argue that something can come from nothing.

When the "magic" comes into play, we wouldn't have nothing anymore. However, for as long as there is nothing, it would be nothing so no definition would be contradicted. Also, I'm not arguing that something can come from nothing. I'm arguing that the claim that something cannot come from nothing, is backed up by nothing (pun intended).


The title of your thread is "The Essence of Nothing", is your argument that the essence of nothing is magic? Do you think nothing has magical qualities?

This is not my thread, learn to read before you post nonsense!
Sui_Generis
Posts: 493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 9:51:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There has never been "nothing." You can say there was, at one point, no matter.

Also, what does "nothing outside of reality" mean? Meaning that there exists nothing but the perceivable? Empiricism?
"Mundus vult decipi--the world wants to be deceived. The truth is too complex and frightening; the taste for the truth is an acquired taste that few acquire."
-Martin Buber, I and Thou
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 11:55:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 7:53:21 PM, KevinW wrote:
I am challenging someone to debate about "nothing" or "nothingness" with me. Can we ever describe nothing and still call it "nothing" or is it "something." I contend there is always "something" exists. My opponent will contend one can have nothing outside reality. This debate is theoretical in nature and applies to philosophy, religion, mathematics and psychology.

Please write to me first to declare interest and negotiate rules and schedule a predetermined starting date. Look forward to receiving responses!

Kevin

Nothingness = existence of non-existence = contradiction. Voila! There's nothing to discuss!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 10:27:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/2/2013 11:55:51 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/26/2013 7:53:21 PM, KevinW wrote:
I am challenging someone to debate about "nothing" or "nothingness" with me. Can we ever describe nothing and still call it "nothing" or is it "something." I contend there is always "something" exists. My opponent will contend one can have nothing outside reality. This debate is theoretical in nature and applies to philosophy, religion, mathematics and psychology.

Please write to me first to declare interest and negotiate rules and schedule a predetermined starting date. Look forward to receiving responses!

Kevin

Nothingness = existence of non-existence = contradiction. Voila! There's nothing to discuss!

That is not really the definition of nothing. Nothingness = Complete lack of any existence at all.