Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is this a sound argument?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:48:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "everything" exists, then all possibilities exist

P2: If all possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is certain for everything to appear

(ii) it is certain for a nothing to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Everything" is impossible

I think this is just Russell's paradox recoated. It doesn't really prove anything.
0x5f3759df
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 4:50:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:48:06 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "everything" exists, then all possibilities exist

P2: If all possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is certain for everything to appear

(ii) it is certain for a nothing to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Everything" is impossible

I think this is just Russell's paradox recoated. It doesn't really prove anything.

Well, the conclusion logically follows from the premises so it has to prove the conclusion if the premises are true. What reason do you have to doubt any of the premises?
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 5:06:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

Theoretically sound.

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

(iii) from P2(i), it is possible for the universe to not appear; this contradicts P1.

Whole argument unsound.

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

If a "possible" event is defined as an event that "has a probabilistic tendency to be true", and an "event" is defined as "anything other than 'nothing' that exists", then we can say that for something "not to happen" doesn't exist.
0x5f3759df
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 5:12:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 5:06:56 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

Theoretically sound.

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

(iii) from P2(i), it is possible for the universe to not appear; this contradicts P1.

Whole argument unsound.

It's not the argument that's unsound, its the idea of nothing.


P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

If a "possible" event is defined as an event that "has a probabilistic tendency to be true", and an "event" is defined as "anything other than 'nothing' that exists", then we can say that for something "not to happen" doesn't exist.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:05:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 5:37:01 PM, Sargon wrote:
Who disagrees with the idea that nothing is impossible?

Agreement is a concern external to argument.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist


This constitutes a constraint which nothingness simply cannot afford.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:32:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

No, by definition, if an argument has contradicting premises it is not a sound argument.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:41:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 6:27:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist


This constitutes a constraint which nothingness simply cannot afford.

In other words, what but existence could provide for the "thingness" of constraint? Nothingness is the utter lack of constraint...it is the utter lack of anything. Nothingness has no means of preventing anything: if it could, it would be something, and thus not nothing.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:04:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

1) Possible for X to exist
2) Possible for X to not exist

Maybe there is a distinction here that matters between things that are possible to exist and things that are possible to not exist ?

If so could be an equivocation on the world possible in their some where.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:11:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 6:05:57 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 10/24/2013 5:37:01 PM, Sargon wrote:
Who disagrees with the idea that nothing is impossible?

Agreement is a concern external to argument.

It's useful to know the context of an argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 6:32:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

No, by definition, if an argument has contradicting premises it is not a sound argument.

Which premises contradict each other?
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 7:42:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

It depends upon one's definition of what you consider to be 'nothing'. Something even scientists have yet to fully agree on with to any conclusive degree.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 9:30:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
P1 is not precise and is even is a fallacy,

If nothing exists , nothing can come to exist.

In order to talk about possibilities you have to start by having something, or assume there is no God, or even define your nothing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:01:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 9:30:27 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
P1 is not precise and is even is a fallacy,

So if nothing exists, possibilities exist? haha


If nothing exists , nothing can come to exist.

Says who?


In order to talk about possibilities you have to start by having something, or assume there is no God, or even define your nothing.

Huh?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 12:27:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:01:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/25/2013 9:30:27 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
P1 is not precise and is even is a fallacy,

So if nothing exists, possibilities exist? haha


If nothing exists , nothing can come to exist.

Says who?


In order to talk about possibilities you have to start by having something, or assume there is no God, or even define your nothing.

Huh?

The question is: why if there is nothing, there are no possibilities ? do not the theists claim even when there was nothing, there still was God, so what is your nothing exactly that force us to say there are no possibilities ?! you need to define it.

Then for no possibilities to be, you have to assume there is not God.

You're talking about "nothing" which you have no knowledge about, and making big assumptions about it.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 12:17:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

Does logic even apply to "nothing"? P3 could be in error, it assumes logic exists in nothing.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:07:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

I suppose you ought to clarify what it is you take "nothing" to be. That largely depends on one's ontological commitments. For example, a realist who holds that, say, propositions and abstract objects exist necessarily may say that "nothing" -- viz. not anything -- could not ever possibly describe any actual state of affairs for even if all the contingent things of our everyday experience were to cease to exist (e.g. people, houses, trucks, trees, planets, galaxies, the universe, etc.), propositions and abstract objects would exist necessarily. It seems impossible, then, given some realist ontological commitments, to conceive of "nothing" or "not anything" "existing" or describing an actual state of affairs as then the proposition "nothing exists" would be rendered true. I'm also not sure what you take "possibilities" to mean. Do you speak of modal possibility, for example, etc.?

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:09:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

http://www.firstthings.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:37:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:07:01 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

I suppose you ought to clarify what it is you take "nothing" to be. That largely depends on one's ontological commitments. For example, a realist who holds that, say, propositions and abstract objects exist necessarily may say that "nothing" -- viz. not anything -- could not ever possibly describe any actual state of affairs for even if all the contingent things of our everyday experience were to cease to exist (e.g. people, houses, trucks, trees, planets, galaxies, the universe, etc.), propositions and abstract objects would exist necessarily. It seems impossible, then, given some realist ontological commitments, to conceive of "nothing" or "not anything" "existing" or describing an actual state of affairs as then the proposition "nothing exists" would be rendered true. I'm also not sure what you take "possibilities" to mean. Do you speak of modal possibility, for example, etc.?

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

Obviously not-anything cannot describe a state of affairs, because a state of affairs is something. By "nothing", I mean complete non-existence. Something being necessary only means it is true in every state of affairs, but that wouldn't apply to nothing, as nothing is not a state of affairs, right?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 9:58:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

If nothing exists, then the principles by which you deduced this conclusion are nonexistent. The employment of a syllogism presupposes the existence, relevance and applicability of logic - and so your argument becomes the non plus ultra of circular reasoning. Absolute nothingness is fundamentally incompatible with any logical operation in which it is invoked.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 9:59:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 9:58:01 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

If nothing exists, then the principles by which you deduced this conclusion are nonexistent. The employment of a syllogism presupposes the existence, relevance and applicability of logic - and so your argument becomes the non plus ultra of circular reasoning. Absolute nothingness is fundamentally incompatible with any logical operation in which it is invoked.

You and Magic got it correct. Even if my argument does show the impossibility of nothing logically, if there was nothing, that would include anything which could be described by logic, so there is no reason to think the argument would hold.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:17:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 9:59:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:58:01 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If "nothing" exists, then no possibilities exist

P2: If no possibilities exist, then both propositions are true:

(i) It is not possible for a universe to appear

(ii) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P3: (i) and (ii) being true is impossible

P4: "Nothing" is impossible

If nothing exists, then the principles by which you deduced this conclusion are nonexistent. The employment of a syllogism presupposes the existence, relevance and applicability of logic - and so your argument becomes the non plus ultra of circular reasoning. Absolute nothingness is fundamentally incompatible with any logical operation in which it is invoked.

You and Magic got it correct. Even if my argument does show the impossibility of nothing logically, if there was nothing, that would include anything which could be described by logic, so there is no reason to think the argument would hold.

How would you prove the impossibility of nothing, anyway? Show that it can't exist? Show that what can't exist?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:44:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If no possibilities exist, then:

(i) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P2: This entails possibilities (the possibility of a universe).

P3: An impossibility is a possibility i.e. the possibility of impossibility.

Your argument is invalid because it sets up nothing as something, then goes on to conclude that if no possibilities exist that "it is not possible for a universe not to appear" -- which is a possibility (the possibility of a universe). Basically, you define nothing as something, then derive conclusions that nothing couldn't possibly account for.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:46:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:44:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If no possibilities exist, then:

(i) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P2: This entails possibilities (the possibility of a universe).

P3: An impossibility is a possibility i.e. the possibility of impossibility.

Your argument is invalid because it sets up nothing as something, then goes on to conclude that if no possibilities exist that "it is not possible for a universe not to appear" -- which is a possibility (the possibility of a universe). Basically, you define nothing as something, then derive conclusions that nothing couldn't possibly account for.

How do I define something as nothing? I am pretty sure "nothing" doesn't mean something. Also, if non-possibilities entail possibilities, then that is just another problem with nothing; not my argument. The problem with the argument is that we have no reason to assume logic would apply if there was nothing
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:55:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:46:35 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 10:44:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If no possibilities exist, then:

(i) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P2: This entails possibilities (the possibility of a universe).

P3: An impossibility is a possibility i.e. the possibility of impossibility.

Your argument is invalid because it sets up nothing as something, then goes on to conclude that if no possibilities exist that "it is not possible for a universe not to appear" -- which is a possibility (the possibility of a universe). Basically, you define nothing as something, then derive conclusions that nothing couldn't possibly account for.

How do I define something as nothing? I am pretty sure "nothing" doesn't mean something. Also, if non-possibilities entail possibilities, then that is just another problem with nothing; not my argument. The problem with the argument is that we have no reason to assume logic would apply if there was nothing

You define nothing as 'no possibilities' which I proved is a possibility. Thus, nothing is 'infinite possibilities' because this requires no meta-constraints. The possibilities 'pop' into their own existence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:57:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:55:46 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/26/2013 10:46:35 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 10:44:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/24/2013 4:12:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If no possibilities exist, then:

(i) it is not possible for a universe not to appear

P2: This entails possibilities (the possibility of a universe).

P3: An impossibility is a possibility i.e. the possibility of impossibility.

Your argument is invalid because it sets up nothing as something, then goes on to conclude that if no possibilities exist that "it is not possible for a universe not to appear" -- which is a possibility (the possibility of a universe). Basically, you define nothing as something, then derive conclusions that nothing couldn't possibly account for.

How do I define something as nothing? I am pretty sure "nothing" doesn't mean something. Also, if non-possibilities entail possibilities, then that is just another problem with nothing; not my argument. The problem with the argument is that we have no reason to assume logic would apply if there was nothing

You define nothing as 'no possibilities' which I proved is a possibility.

Then nothing entails a contradiction, which is exactly the point of the argument lol

Thus, nothing is 'infinite possibilities' because this requires no meta-constraints. The possibilities 'pop' into their own existence.