Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something has Always Existed

Chaosism
Posts: 2,668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.

Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.

This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 2:24:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.

Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.

This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.

I don't think we can make sense of "nothing". To say at some point "there was nothing" is self defeating.
Further, there is no experiment that could ever confirm the hypothesis "there is nothing", so why should we assume that a "nothingness" is the natural state of things?

At least that's how I think about it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 2:58:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
You (we) have defined "nothingness" as a true void, and said that it cannot exist, so it does not exist.
Why is it true that it is impossible for nothing to exist? What evidence do you have?Since we have never seen a true void, we assume it does not exist.
It seems to defy logic, but, really, convincing evidence is lacking.
We can use logic to arrive at one of two outcomes, and either is rather hard to comprehend.
Either existence is eternal, no beginning, no end, or at some point in the past or future, there will be true nothingness, no existence.

Hawking says Time has a beginning.
I do not see how Time has a beginning, but existence does not.

In fact, here is what Stephen Hawking says: ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Maybe he uses the word 'nothing' differently than you do, but not that I can see.

You and I both disagree with Hawking.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 3:10:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/12/2016 2:58:44 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
You (we) have defined "nothingness" as a true void, and said that it cannot exist, so it does not exist.
Why is it true that it is impossible for nothing to exist? What evidence do you have?Since we have never seen a true void, we assume it does not exist.
It seems to defy logic, but, really, convincing evidence is lacking.
We can use logic to arrive at one of two outcomes, and either is rather hard to comprehend.
Either existence is eternal, no beginning, no end, or at some point in the past or future, there will be true nothingness, no existence.

Hawking says Time has a beginning.
I do not see how Time has a beginning, but existence does not.

In fact, here is what Stephen Hawking says: ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Maybe he uses the word 'nothing' differently than you do, but not that I can see.

You and I both disagree with Hawking.

Yes, we created that definition to represent a concept that we cannot even conceptualize (akin to a "square circle") because as soon as we do, then whatever we've conceptualized is something. The best we can do is fabricate a definition combining existing coherent concepts (again, akin to a "square circle"). I largely agree with Fkkize's previous comment.

Regarding Hawking, I'm hesitant to accept such a quote without knowing the context and exactly what he means by "nothing". A quantum vacuum is not nothing in the sense that we are talking about it. Regarding time, the few quotes I have read (with context) describe the *effective* beginning of time in regard to the observable state of the universe (i.e. post-Big Bang). I am not privy to much beyond that.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 4:39:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 3:10:47 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/12/2016 2:58:44 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
You (we) have defined "nothingness" as a true void, and said that it cannot exist, so it does not exist.
Why is it true that it is impossible for nothing to exist? What evidence do you have?Since we have never seen a true void, we assume it does not exist.
It seems to defy logic, but, really, convincing evidence is lacking.
We can use logic to arrive at one of two outcomes, and either is rather hard to comprehend.
Either existence is eternal, no beginning, no end, or at some point in the past or future, there will be true nothingness, no existence.

Hawking says Time has a beginning.
I do not see how Time has a beginning, but existence does not.

In fact, here is what Stephen Hawking says: ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Maybe he uses the word 'nothing' differently than you do, but not that I can see.

You and I both disagree with Hawking.

Yes, we created that definition to represent a concept that we cannot even conceptualize (akin to a "square circle") because as soon as we do, then whatever we've conceptualized is something. The best we can do is fabricate a definition combining existing coherent concepts (again, akin to a "square circle"). I largely agree with Fkkize's previous comment.

Regarding Hawking, I'm hesitant to accept such a quote without knowing the context and exactly what he means by "nothing". A quantum vacuum is not nothing in the sense that we are talking about it. Regarding time, the few quotes I have read (with context) describe the *effective* beginning of time in regard to the observable state of the universe (i.e. post-Big Bang). I am not privy to much beyond that.

In his usage Time began at the moment of the BB, I do not recall any qualifiers such as "effective", in his usage of Time, as in "the beginning of.....".
As for context of "nothing" before the beginning of Time, that is easy enough to Google.
Again, no qualifiers that I saw.
You are free to show otherwise.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:06:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 4:39:23 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 3:10:47 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/12/2016 2:58:44 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
You (we) have defined "nothingness" as a true void, and said that it cannot exist, so it does not exist.
Why is it true that it is impossible for nothing to exist? What evidence do you have?Since we have never seen a true void, we assume it does not exist.
It seems to defy logic, but, really, convincing evidence is lacking.
We can use logic to arrive at one of two outcomes, and either is rather hard to comprehend.
Either existence is eternal, no beginning, no end, or at some point in the past or future, there will be true nothingness, no existence.

Hawking says Time has a beginning.
I do not see how Time has a beginning, but existence does not.

In fact, here is what Stephen Hawking says: ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Maybe he uses the word 'nothing' differently than you do, but not that I can see.

You and I both disagree with Hawking.

Yes, we created that definition to represent a concept that we cannot even conceptualize (akin to a "square circle") because as soon as we do, then whatever we've conceptualized is something. The best we can do is fabricate a definition combining existing coherent concepts (again, akin to a "square circle"). I largely agree with Fkkize's previous comment.

Regarding Hawking, I'm hesitant to accept such a quote without knowing the context and exactly what he means by "nothing". A quantum vacuum is not nothing in the sense that we are talking about it. Regarding time, the few quotes I have read (with context) describe the *effective* beginning of time in regard to the observable state of the universe (i.e. post-Big Bang). I am not privy to much beyond that.

In his usage Time began at the moment of the BB, I do not recall any qualifiers such as "effective", in his usage of Time, as in "the beginning of.....".
As for context of "nothing" before the beginning of Time, that is easy enough to Google.
Again, no qualifiers that I saw.
You are free to show otherwise.

This is one of the documents In which I saw that: http://www.hawking.org.uk... (5th paragraph). I know he talks about real time vs. imaginary time, but I don't currently know enough about this to have a valid opinion. Thank you for your posts to this thread!
albertack
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 12:48:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Propositions 2, 4, & 5, to me, seem to carry an axiomatic Truth value. Thus, I would like to look at the first and third propositions only. Your definition of "nothing" is being "devoid of anything that pertains to existence." This, you listed, includes time. Given this definition it seems as though you are correct in asserting that "nothing cannot exist," for if we have a present (which I assume you would accept), then there must exist a past. Thus time seems to be inextricably tied up in our history. I'm not familiar with Hawking's statement that was referenced, but to me, the mere existence of an antecedent necessitates time, whether it be measurable or not. Therefore, it would be a misnomer to speak of "before time," for the very statement indicates a progression, a "timeline" if you will.

Assuming you accept the above justification for proposition one (feel free to reject it anyone), I'll move on to proposition three; this is that "something" stands in direct opposition to "nothing." It is cause for reflection whether or not we are merely engaging in a "language game," a sort of circular reasoning. In other words, can the two ideas exist outside of language. I believe that they can. Of course, this cannot be proven, for language is inextricably tied up in our thoughts, our perceptions. Yet it seems that nothing could be more base, more dichotomous, than that of something vs. nothing.

Essentially, I've tried to afford additional support for the two propositions I feel could most reasonably be questioned. Overall, I quite like your syllogism. Nice work, and thanks for sharing.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 3:21:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.

Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.

This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics says you are wrong. And we can trace this error to your major premise.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 3:22:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Of course, atheists are really not interested in science when it contradicts their mysticism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 6:01:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 3:21:36 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.

Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.

This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics says you are wrong. And we can trace this error to your major premise.

dS = dQ/T > or = 0

How does this invalidate any a priori premises?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 6:01:15 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.
The problem with this is when you start the real argument with a definition that you simply argue back to via circular reasoning the argument doesn't somehow negate your circular reasoning simply by leaving the first premise out of your nice useless little p)1, p)2 materialistic justification bulllllsssssshhhhhhiiiiiitttttt.
Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Prove it
P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
Then how can you use it in a premise? What are you actually using in this premise? Oh yeah nothing.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
Once again, what exactly are you using as the subject in this premise? Nothing......
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
Sorry no, nothing cannot be an existing concept, hence it would then be something, a concept. So nothing here would be an equivocation fallacy. If it's nothing, it isn't a concept.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
So if its not the case that nothing didn't not exist then nothing couldn't have not not existed?
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.
Yeah, so God has always existed, what's the argument? You're about 2000 years late for this bit of wisdom.
This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.
You sure this wasn't a head in arse argument as opposed to tongue in butt cheek? Bwhahaha, I kid
Chaosism
Posts: 2,668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 2:20:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 6:01:15 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.
The problem with this is when you start the real argument with a definition that you simply argue back to via circular reasoning the argument doesn't somehow negate your circular reasoning simply by leaving the first premise out of your nice useless little p)1, p)2 materialistic justification bulllllsssssshhhhhhiiiiiitttttt.
Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Prove it
P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
Then how can you use it in a premise? What are you actually using in this premise? Oh yeah nothing.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
Once again, what exactly are you using as the subject in this premise? Nothing......
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
Sorry no, nothing cannot be an existing concept, hence it would then be something, a concept. So nothing here would be an equivocation fallacy. If it's nothing, it isn't a concept.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
So if its not the case that nothing didn't not exist then nothing couldn't have not not existed?
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.
Yeah, so God has always existed, what's the argument? You're about 2000 years late for this bit of wisdom.
This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.
You sure this wasn't a head in arse argument as opposed to tongue in butt cheek? Bwhahaha, I kid

Ha! Somebody was certainly triggered! ;P
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2016 9:44:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/18/2016 2:20:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/18/2016 6:01:15 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.
The problem with this is when you start the real argument with a definition that you simply argue back to via circular reasoning the argument doesn't somehow negate your circular reasoning simply by leaving the first premise out of your nice useless little p)1, p)2 materialistic justification bulllllsssssshhhhhhiiiiiitttttt.
Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Prove it
P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
Then how can you use it in a premise? What are you actually using in this premise? Oh yeah nothing.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
Once again, what exactly are you using as the subject in this premise? Nothing......
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
Sorry no, nothing cannot be an existing concept, hence it would then be something, a concept. So nothing here would be an equivocation fallacy. If it's nothing, it isn't a concept.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
So if its not the case that nothing didn't not exist then nothing couldn't have not not existed?
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.
Yeah, so God has always existed, what's the argument? You're about 2000 years late for this bit of wisdom.
This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.
You sure this wasn't a head in arse argument as opposed to tongue in butt cheek? Bwhahaha, I kid

Ha! Somebody was certainly triggered! ;P

Did you like my triple quadruple double negative? you got to admit it's kind of funny saying you can't use nothing as a subject of a premise..... But you are right, nothing never existed. Thats why they say God has always existed.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2016 11:42:37 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.

Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
C1) Therefore, if it's not the case that nothing ever existed, then something has always existed.
C2) Therefore, something has always existed.

This was kind of a tongue-in-cheek argument I gave someone in response to the line, "something cannot come from nothing", in regard to the Big Bing (a distorted version of it, anyway). It shows that existence (which is the comprisal of existent things) is eternal.

Instead of a mocking you because you don't see the folly or your argument I've decided you should experience a respectful answer....lol
Premise 1, by definition, nothing cannot exist.....
Conclusion 2 therefore, something has always existed.....
P1) can be explained and worded using the grammatical rule of double negation
(No) thing can(not) exist, applying the rule of double negation this phrase is the grammatical equivalent to ..."thing can exist"
Con2) states..... some(thing) always existed (it is the same as "thing can exist")
Hence, the conclusion is merely premise 1 restated, the modifier "always" in the conclusion is irrelevant to logic, or in this case an attempt at logic,.....It's circular reasoning.
rocket
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:48:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.

Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
Right. This "nothing", as you have defined it, cannot exist as that would contradict it's definition. So this "nothing" thing never existed.

P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
A dichotomy implies that one or the other must exist. I disagree. There's a distinction between "nothing" existing (which we agree is impossible), and between no thing existing, which I believe is possible. And if no thing exists, then neither "nothing" nor something exists, and the two concepts do not form a dichotomy.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:01:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 10:48:04 AM, rocket wrote:
At 5/12/2016 1:50:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Definitions:
Nothing : in the absolute sense, absolutely devoid of anything that pertains to existence (i.e. matter, space, time, etc.); having no tangible qualities in objective reality.

Existence : the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

P1) By definition, nothing cannot exist.
P2) If it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's not the case that nothing ever existed.
Right. This "nothing", as you have defined it, cannot exist as that would contradict it's definition. So this "nothing" thing never existed.

P3) The concepts of "nothing" and "something" create a true dichotomy.
A dichotomy implies that one or the other must exist. I disagree. There's a distinction between "nothing" existing (which we agree is impossible), and between no thing existing, which I believe is possible. And if no thing exists, then neither "nothing" nor something exists, and the two concepts do not form a dichotomy.
You completely missed it is circular reasoning.....
Nothing cannot exist is a grammatical statement that falls under the definition of double negation....
(No) thing. Can(not) exist is the equivelant to saying things can exist. The conclusion says, therefore things have always existed. There's no distinction between thing can exist and things have always existed. It's circular reasoning and isn't even an argument that deserves attention. Simply put the argument is ......
P1)things can exist C2)therefore things have always existed.
A rudimentary understanding of grammar leads to obvious circular reasoning.
rocket
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:46:14 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:01:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
You completely missed it is circular reasoning.....
Nothing cannot exist is a grammatical statement that falls under the definition of double negation....
(No) thing. Can(not) exist is the equivelant to saying things can exist.

Actually, "no thing can not exist" is equivalent to saying all things must exist. But that's not the same as what the OP was saying. He was saying: It is impossible for Nothing (as he defined it) to exist, as that would contradict his definition. Which is obviously a true statement. His "nothing" does not carry the same meaning as "no thing", as "no thing" is not a concept or object but phrase used to make a statement about things in general.

When I say say "nothing (no thing) is blue", that means that out of all things, none of them are blue. But if I define nothing to be an abstract concept that is "devoid of anything pertaining to existence", and say that "nothing is blue", I am saying that this nothing thing - which has no physical existence - is blue.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 12:26:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I think that - pro tem - the best option is to consider time did not exist before the big bang. If you like the idea of a finite beginning, it is the big bang. If you prefer an eternal universe then you can suppose that the universe is eternal because there was no time before the big bang.

On that view the question 'what was there before the BB?' is syntactically ok, but it's semantically flawed, as is asking what is north of the north pole. If there was 'anything' before the BB it was the most perfect of nothings. Before the BB there was no time and no space. Such a realm taxes human imagination beyond its limits, or at least as far as this human in concerned.

Of course that still leaves the problem of what caused the big bang if there was 'nothing' for it to spawn it. On that issue, I am agnostic. I hope that perhaps if some post-doc reconciles QM with gravity, or finally get string theory to work out we will all develop 20-20 hindsight and wonder why it wasn't obvious all along.

I don't think we will get anywhere with 4 or 5 line syllogisms and quibbles over words. The solution will be found by abstruse mathematics. I don't think anyone can demonstrate why the Higgs particle gives mass to the universe with a syllogism, and I don't think that word-play will answer the harder question of why the universe - or universes - exist.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 5:54:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Of course something has always existed. There can be no "before" existence, since if something existed before existence, then existence was already present and was therefore not preceded by anything.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 7:42:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It is decidedly not a true dichotomy.

http://imgur.com...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:32:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:46:14 AM, rocket wrote:
At 5/23/2016 11:01:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
You completely missed it is circular reasoning.....
Nothing cannot exist is a grammatical statement that falls under the definition of double negation....
(No) thing. Can(not) exist is the equivelant to saying things can exist.

Actually, "no thing can not exist" is equivalent to saying all things must exist. But that's not the same as what the OP was saying. He was saying: It is impossible for Nothing (as he defined it) to exist, as that would contradict his definition. Which is obviously a true statement. His "nothing" does not carry the same meaning as "no thing", as "no thing" is not a concept or object but phrase used to make a statement about things in general.
I will take this as a comment that you are utterly a moron.......
When I say say "nothing (no thing) is blue", that means that out of all things, none of them are blue.

But if I define nothing to be an abstract concept that is "devoid of anything pertaining to existence", and say that "nothing is blue", I am saying that this nothing thing - which has no physical existence - is blue.
So, something that has no physical existence is blue? LMFAO.. Can't debate this kind of logic. Sorry, but while I cachinnate forgive me for uttering the obvious, you are an idiot.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:04:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Of course something has always existed. There can be no "before" existence, since if something existed before existence, then existence was already present and was therefore not preceded by anything.

How is that affected if time itself started at definite point, say 13.7 billlion years ago? I think in that case something that existed 13.7 billion years ago can be said to have 'always existed' as there would be no time prior to 13.7 billion years ago. So

I can't actually imagine a realm without time. If a film-maker wanted to represent the big bang on an IMAX screen chances are he'd start with a few frames of black the show a point of bright light that rapidly expands to fill the screeen (with a suitably dramatic sound track). But that would be totally wrong, because there would not have been any 'black frames' before the BB (there is no 'before'), nor was there anywhere outside the expanding universe to put the camera to capture the shot, because space also did not exist until the BB brought it into being.
rocket
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:21:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 9:32:48 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
I will take this as a comment that you are utterly a moron.......
Ad hominems don't strengthen your position. Try refuting my statement.
So, something that has no physical existence is blue?
I'm not making any such claims. Only clarifying the meaning of the statements pertaining to nothing, when we have defined nothing "devoid of anything pertaining to existence". "Nothing is blue" was merely an example of such a statement, nonsensical as it may be.

You need to realize that OP's definition of nothing is distinct from the most common usage of the word (where it is equivalent to "no thing").
keithprosser
Posts: 2,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 12:14:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I will take this as a comment that you are utterly a moron.......
Ad hominems don't strengthen your position. Try refuting my statement.


Grrrr.... I wish people wouldn't say 'ad hominem' when its just a plain old-fashioned insult. A proper ad hominem would be, for example, to point out you don't have a PhD in Philosopy with the implication what you say can be safely ignored, deflecting attention away from what you are saying is totally valid. Calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominem, saying someone is biased because they have shares in the company (without addressing the actual points raised) is.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 2:50:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:21:16 PM, rocket wrote:
At 5/23/2016 9:32:48 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
I will take this as a comment that you are utterly a moron.......
Ad hominems don't strengthen your position. Try refuting my statement.
You misunderstand. It wasn't a personal attack it was a conclusion of disposition simply by what should be obvious to anyone who has been through 6th grade grammar.
So, something that has no physical existence is blue?
I'm not making any such claims.
Since you erased exactly that I'm assuming you're even more dumb than an idiot as it is posted above for everyone to see.
Only clarifying the meaning of the statements pertaining to nothing,
You mistake me for someone who needs clarification
when we have defined nothing "devoid of anything pertaining to existence".
So lets plug it in shall we
Non existence cannot exist
Rule of double negation applies you get existence can exist
Since nothing is being defined as devoid of existence and "something" is being defined as that which exists...the argument again is obviously circular reasoning. Let me know when you get on board with the obvious.
"Nothing is blue" was merely an example of such a statement, nonsensical as it may be.
Nonsensical is all you have, why would you acknowledge it?
You need to realize that OP's definition of nothing is distinct from the most common usage of the word (where it is equivalent to "no thing").
Umm no, sorry.
rocket
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 2:30:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
So, something that has no physical existence is blue?
I'm not making any such claims.
Since you erased exactly that I'm assuming you're even more dumb than an idiot as it is posted above for everyone to see.
For one who accuses me of being an idiot your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. For your own sake, I hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Clearly neither of us will gain anything from a discussion so I'm done here.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 3:26:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 2:30:38 PM, rocket wrote:
So, something that has no physical existence is blue?
I'm not making any such claims.
Since you erased exactly that I'm assuming you're even more dumb than an idiot as it is posted above for everyone to see.
For one who accuses me of being an idiot your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. For your own sake, I hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Clearly neither of us will gain anything from a discussion so I'm done here.

Welcome to DDO.
He's a contrarian who quite possibly suffers from some kind of mental illness. As you noticed, it's best to leave him alone.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:12:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 10:04:34 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Of course something has always existed. There can be no "before" existence, since if something existed before existence, then existence was already present and was therefore not preceded by anything.

How is that affected if time itself started at definite point, say 13.7 billlion years ago? I think in that case something that existed 13.7 billion years ago can be said to have 'always existed' as there would be no time prior to 13.7 billion years ago. So


I think you might have misunderstood my argument, as I'm not disputing that something has always existed.

I can't actually imagine a realm without time. If a film-maker wanted to represent the big bang on an IMAX screen chances are he'd start with a few frames of black the show a point of bright light that rapidly expands to fill the screeen (with a suitably dramatic sound track). But that would be totally wrong, because there would not have been any 'black frames' before the BB (there is no 'before'), nor was there anywhere outside the expanding universe to put the camera to capture the shot, because space also did not exist until the BB brought it into being.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 9:04:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 3:26:30 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/24/2016 2:30:38 PM, rocket wrote:
So, something that has no physical existence is blue?
I'm not making any such claims.
Since you erased exactly that I'm assuming you're even more dumb than an idiot as it is posted above for everyone to see.
For one who accuses me of being an idiot your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. For your own sake, I hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Clearly neither of us will gain anything from a discussion so I'm done here.

Welcome to DDO.
He's a contrarian who quite possibly suffers from some kind of mental illness. As you noticed, it's best to leave him alone.
Externalism argument destroyed and outed.....
Wanna do your wholly good God syllogism next?, Send me a debate put that personal opinion fallacy out in public for all to see....have you learned your sophomore logic yet?
lol