Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Could There Have Ever Been Nothing?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The question of why there is something rather than nothing assumes that there could have been nothing in the first place. Could there have been? Or, is something necessary, making nothingness impossible?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 4:48:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 4:17:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The question of why there is something rather than nothing assumes that there could have been nothing in the first place. Could there have been? Or, is something necessary, making nothingness impossible?
No because "nothingness" is a meaningless term that equates to contradiction. Nothingness, like many other things, is defined through negation. This technique of defining things can work well and yield a coherent concept but only when we negate things that can be negated. For example, if we say "there are zero apples in the bag" this means that there are no apples or the negations of apples but this does not mean that in their place there isn't anything else, there is. There might be air in the bag, or oranges, or etc. The problem is that "nothingness" attempts to negate existence and the negation of existence simply does not exist.

So when we ask "could there HAVE BEEN nothing in the first place" this amounts to "could there HAVE EXISTED-NOT-EXISTED in the first place" and that's a contradiction.
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
4/22/2014 5:08:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One could also say that the laws of logic are necessary. Ergo, there never could have been nothing, because that would mean no laws of logic, which is impossible.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:19:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 5:08:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
One could also say that the laws of logic are necessary. Ergo, there never could have been nothing, because that would mean no laws of logic, which is impossible.
I agree. There has to be some thing coherent otherwise it's no different than any other incoherence...and from a contradiction, anything can follow.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:19:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Possibly, although 'ever' implies time, and space, and sequenced 'events'.

So maybe the question is a meaningless one.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:22:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 5:19:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Possibly, although 'ever' implies time, and space, and sequenced 'events'.
Yes, but existence does not necessarily require time or space or a sequence of events; it is time, space, and physics that require existence AND a sequence of events.

So maybe the question is a meaningless one.
Not meaningless if you remove the time component (and space by extension.)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.