Total Posts:286|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I suspect the universe is eternal.

NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:05:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Whether you look at existence as infinite or finite, there is some sort of paradox attached. Nobody truly knows, so I opt to believe that there has never been a time of nonexistence ... for anything. Personally, that just makes more sense to me.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:06:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

P2 is unsubstantiated. You assume it.

P4 assumes infinite time which, again, is unsubstantiated.

P3, P4 and P5 are conclusions not propositions.

A very poor logical construction.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:23:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Now apply this to an eternal God. Answer your own questions. Lol.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:30:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:05:37 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Whether you look at existence as infinite or finite, there is some sort of paradox attached. Nobody truly knows, so I opt to believe that there has never been a time of nonexistence ... for anything. Personally, that just makes more sense to me.

I agree with "there has never been a time of nonexistence." Even to say, nothing exists, is still some type of existence. And where is it, that this nothing exists? As I said to a friend once, "nothing is location dependent."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:35:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Let me see if I have this straight.

P1 All ((Some Widget )) that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 (( No Widget at all)) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore ((No Widget at all)), in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore ((Some widget)), in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Is that what you mean? If so I have some contentions with the logic used.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:39:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:06:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

P2 is unsubstantiated. You assume it.

P4 assumes infinite time which, again, is unsubstantiated.

P3, P4 and P5 are conclusions not propositions.

A very poor logical construction.

I have no formal training in logical construction. So It may be fair that my formalization isn't structured correctly. But as I understand it, there should be at least one conclusion. Otherwise, what are you trying to prove. Also, can two conclusions be used to arrive at a third? I would think so.
To the rest of your criticism. P2 isn't assumed. I've spent many hours and read two books on "nothing." I find no argument, logic or evidence that a state of nothing can exist. Nothing isn't definable, identifiable, or testable. There is no reason to think nothing can exist.
"P4 assumes infinite time." This is no assumption and follows directly from the previous arguments. If nothing cannot ever exist, than something must always exist. That is simple logic and easily true. If the nothing conclusion is correct.
Looking back at it, your correct in my labeling error. I will correct them to
C3, C4, C5
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:49:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Good questions, kinda. First, human intuitions aren't to be trusted. Colors don't exist in nature, there is no red atom, no green atom, yet we are convinced colors do exist. So lets just be a bit humble about what our intuitions tell us.
If you were to imagine a state of complete emptiness, an infinite void, and in that state no events took place, then time wouldn't exist in that state. No need to ask, when did it begin, when was the first whatever. Time is an emergent property had exists only when things are happening. To ask, "when was the first event?" is to think time exists by itself as a constant.
If nothing isn't a possible state, than something must always exist, making the universe eternal. No need to ask "when was the first." It would be a bad question. There is no first in eternity. I know this doesn't make intuitive sense to use humans. But we also think colors exist and get the wrong every single day with every single glance.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:57:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:39:55 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:06:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

P2 is unsubstantiated. You assume it.

P4 assumes infinite time which, again, is unsubstantiated.

P3, P4 and P5 are conclusions not propositions.

A very poor logical construction.

I have no formal training in logical construction. So It may be fair that my formalization isn't structured correctly. But as I understand it, there should be at least one conclusion. Otherwise, what are you trying to prove. Also, can two conclusions be used to arrive at a third? I would think so.
To the rest of your criticism. P2 isn't assumed. I've spent many hours and read two books on "nothing." I find no argument, logic or evidence that a state of nothing can exist. Nothing isn't definable, identifiable, or testable.

Of course not. If it were, it would not be nothing. And who would do the defining, identifying or testing?

There is no reason to think nothing can exist.

So you are saying because an intelligent being made of something and living in something cannot conceive of nothing, then nothing is impossible? That would be an obvious fallacy since you can only arrive at that position by existing in a state of non-nothing.

"P4 assumes infinite time." This is no assumption and follows directly from the previous arguments. If nothing cannot ever exist, than something must always exist. That is simple logic and easily true. If the nothing conclusion is correct.

No. If time were finite your statement "if nothing cannot ever exist [in all of time], then something must always exist" would still be true. Nothing there eliminates the possibility of finite time. Therefore you are just assuming infinite time.

Looking back at it, your correct in my labeling error. I will correct them to
C3, C4, C5
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:00:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:35:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Let me see if I have this straight.

P1 All ((Some Widget )) that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 (( No Widget at all)) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore ((No Widget at all)), in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore ((Some widget)), in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Is that what you mean? If so I have some contentions with the logic used.

Not really sure what the "widget" example is implying. I will try and clarify a bit. Then hit me with your criticisms.

P1 Anything that exists must logically be able to exist.
This seems true as a requirement. How could something exist that cannot logically exist? That's a contradiction
P2 Nothing, as a natural form of existence, isn't logically sound.
Much thought has gone into this. I don't think nothing is a possible state of existence. But this is probably the point to attack. I cannot prove it true. I can only argue that it is.
P3 or C3 (I'm not sure which is the correct term) Looking back at it, P2 and P3 basically the same. I'll move to 4
P4/C4 Something, as a natural form, must always exist
P5/C5 Therefore the universe is eternal.
I'm using "natural form" so we all understand I'm referring to natural states of existence and not some idea or concept.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:11:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:49:25 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Good questions, kinda. First, human intuitions aren't to be trusted. Colors don't exist in nature, there is no red atom, no green atom, yet we are convinced colors do exist. So lets just be a bit humble about what our intuitions tell us.
If you were to imagine a state of complete emptiness, an infinite void, and in that state no events took place, then time wouldn't exist in that state. No need to ask, when did it begin, when was the first whatever. Time is an emergent property had exists only when things are happening. To ask, "when was the first event?" is to think time exists by itself as a constant.
If nothing isn't a possible state, than something must always exist, making the universe eternal. No need to ask "when was the first." It would be a bad question. There is no first in eternity. I know this doesn't make intuitive sense to use humans. But we also think colors exist and get the wrong every single day with every single glance.

Could it be a matrix
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:14:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:57:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:39:55 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:06:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

P2 is unsubstantiated. You assume it.

P4 assumes infinite time which, again, is unsubstantiated.

P3, P4 and P5 are conclusions not propositions.

A very poor logical construction.

I have no formal training in logical construction. So It may be fair that my formalization isn't structured correctly. But as I understand it, there should be at least one conclusion. Otherwise, what are you trying to prove. Also, can two conclusions be used to arrive at a third? I would think so.
To the rest of your criticism. P2 isn't assumed. I've spent many hours and read two books on "nothing." I find no argument, logic or evidence that a state of nothing can exist. Nothing isn't definable, identifiable, or testable.

Of course not. If it were, it would not be nothing. And who would do the defining, identifying or testing?

Right, which is why I find there to be significant problems with the concept of nothing. If you cannot say what it is, if you cannot say there it is, if you cannot sample it, what right do you have to think it is possible? Can you give me a reason to think nothing is a possible state of existence?

There is no reason to think nothing can exist.

So you are saying because an intelligent being made of something and living in something cannot conceive of nothing, then nothing is impossible? That would be an obvious fallacy since you can only arrive at that position by existing in a state of non-nothing.

No I'm not saying that. I freely concede I cannot prove P2 is correct. I have good reasons to think it is correct. I have no good reasons to think it isn't. Therefore I give more weight to the prospects that it is correct. Feel free to attack it if you wish. I think that is the place to attack.

"P4 assumes infinite time." This is no assumption and follows directly from the previous arguments. If nothing cannot ever exist, than something must always exist. That is simple logic and easily true. If the nothing conclusion is correct.

No. If time were finite your statement "if nothing cannot ever exist [in all of time], then something must always exist" would still be true. Nothing there eliminates the possibility of finite time. Therefore you are just assuming infinite time.

I'm not assuming infinite time. Infinite time follows from the conclusion that nothing cannot exist. If nothing cannot exist (I think this is true, but cannot prove it, the reason for believing it true are better than the reasons for believing it false) then something must always exist. Notice the word "always" that is eternal. Right there infinite time fell right in our laps from the conclusion that nothing cannot exist.

Asking when the "first" thing happened in infinite time is an invalid question

Looking back at it, your correct in my labeling error. I will correct them to
C3, C4, C5
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:28:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:11:36 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:49:25 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Good questions, kinda. First, human intuitions aren't to be trusted. Colors don't exist in nature, there is no red atom, no green atom, yet we are convinced colors do exist. So lets just be a bit humble about what our intuitions tell us.
If you were to imagine a state of complete emptiness, an infinite void, and in that state no events took place, then time wouldn't exist in that state. No need to ask, when did it begin, when was the first whatever. Time is an emergent property had exists only when things are happening. To ask, "when was the first event?" is to think time exists by itself as a constant.
If nothing isn't a possible state, than something must always exist, making the universe eternal. No need to ask "when was the first." It would be a bad question. There is no first in eternity. I know this doesn't make intuitive sense to use humans. But we also think colors exist and get the wrong every single day with every single glance.

Could it be a matrix

I noticed your link at the bottom. Billy Graham, "God loves you." Not to be rude. But I though to myself, "I don't need that, God's love." (I'm only assuming one god at the moment. Although I have a book of thousands of gods. If there is one god, there could be thousands, millions, even billions) I wonder, Is "God's love" something you feel you need? If so, why?
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:28:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:14:09 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:57:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:39:55 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:06:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

P2 is unsubstantiated. You assume it.

P4 assumes infinite time which, again, is unsubstantiated.

P3, P4 and P5 are conclusions not propositions.

A very poor logical construction.

I have no formal training in logical construction. So It may be fair that my formalization isn't structured correctly. But as I understand it, there should be at least one conclusion. Otherwise, what are you trying to prove. Also, can two conclusions be used to arrive at a third? I would think so.
To the rest of your criticism. P2 isn't assumed. I've spent many hours and read two books on "nothing." I find no argument, logic or evidence that a state of nothing can exist. Nothing isn't definable, identifiable, or testable.

Of course not. If it were, it would not be nothing. And who would do the defining, identifying or testing?

Right, which is why I find there to be significant problems with the concept of nothing. If you cannot say what it is, if you cannot say there it is, if you cannot sample it, what right do you have to think it is possible? Can you give me a reason to think nothing is a possible state of existence?

Your problem is the final word, 'existence'. As soon as you use it you are assuming time since that is what it means to exist, to persist in time for some interval. When you assume time (space-time) you are immediately taken away from talking about nothing. Nothing is non-existence. I can conceive of my own non-existence. I wasn't around 100 years ago and I wasn't aware of it and had no means to sample it. It doesn't mean it wasn't true.

There is no reason to think nothing can exist.

So you are saying because an intelligent being made of something and living in something cannot conceive of nothing, then nothing is impossible? That would be an obvious fallacy since you can only arrive at that position by existing in a state of non-nothing.

No I'm not saying that. I freely concede I cannot prove P2 is correct. I have good reasons to think it is correct. I have no good reasons to think it isn't. Therefore I give more weight to the prospects that it is correct. Feel free to attack it if you wish. I think that is the place to attack.

See above.

"P4 assumes infinite time." This is no assumption and follows directly from the previous arguments. If nothing cannot ever exist, than something must always exist. That is simple logic and easily true. If the nothing conclusion is correct.

No. If time were finite your statement "if nothing cannot ever exist [in all of time], then something must always exist" would still be true. Nothing there eliminates the possibility of finite time. Therefore you are just assuming infinite time.

I'm not assuming infinite time. Infinite time follows from the conclusion that nothing cannot exist. If nothing cannot exist (I think this is true, but cannot prove it, the reason for believing it true are better than the reasons for believing it false) then something must always exist. Notice the word "always" that is eternal.

Exactly. You are assuming your conclusion by incorporating the word 'always'. Nowhere have you justified it.

Right there infinite time fell right in our laps from the conclusion that nothing cannot exist.

No. It didn't follow. You just introduced the word 'always' (all of time) out of nowhere (pun intended).

Asking when the "first" thing happened in infinite time is an invalid question

Huh?

Looking back at it, your correct in my labeling error. I will correct them to
C3, C4, C5
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:36:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:28:02 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:11:36 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:49:25 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Good questions, kinda. First, human intuitions aren't to be trusted. Colors don't exist in nature, there is no red atom, no green atom, yet we are convinced colors do exist. So lets just be a bit humble about what our intuitions tell us.
If you were to imagine a state of complete emptiness, an infinite void, and in that state no events took place, then time wouldn't exist in that state. No need to ask, when did it begin, when was the first whatever. Time is an emergent property had exists only when things are happening. To ask, "when was the first event?" is to think time exists by itself as a constant.
If nothing isn't a possible state, than something must always exist, making the universe eternal. No need to ask "when was the first." It would be a bad question. There is no first in eternity. I know this doesn't make intuitive sense to use humans. But we also think colors exist and get the wrong every single day with every single glance.

Could it be a matrix

I noticed your link at the bottom. Billy Graham, "God loves you." Not to be rude. But I though to myself, "I don't need that, God's love." (I'm only assuming one god at the moment. Although I have a book of thousands of gods. If there is one god, there could be thousands, millions, even billions) I wonder, Is "God's love" something you feel you need? If so, why?

If you look through my debates you will see why the Bible is right. It declares a way the Earth will continue to shape, and it has. It depicts a movement that brings forth an epic clash between the children of Isaac and the children of Ishmael. There are about 7 billion people on Earth. About 5 billion are of one of the 3 Abrahamic faiths and growing. Buddhism is nontheistic/atheist. That leaves Hinduism which consists of a massive minority and is dying out, giving way to Islam. What Hindus are left and worship a pantheon of gods that use the very crescent moon of Islam such as Shiva and Kali for example.

Why need God's love. The same reason I needed my earthly dad's love. The hierarchy of scientific, psychological, and spiritual needs of all human beings. The last thing dying soldiers in WWII were noted for calling for were 1) God 2)Mom. That's the reality of our makeup.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:41:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:00:38 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:35:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Let me see if I have this straight.

P1 All ((Some Widget )) that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 (( No Widget at all)) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore ((No Widget at all)), in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore ((Some widget)), in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Is that what you mean? If so I have some contentions with the logic used.

Not really sure what the "widget" example is implying. I will try and clarify a bit. Then hit me with your criticisms.

P1 Anything that exists must logically be able to exist.
This seems true as a requirement. How could something exist that cannot logically exist? That's a contradiction
P2 Nothing, as a natural form of existence, isn't logically sound.
Much thought has gone into this. I don't think nothing is a possible state of existence. But this is probably the point to attack. I cannot prove it true. I can only argue that it is.
P3 or C3 (I'm not sure which is the correct term) Looking back at it, P2 and P3 basically the same. I'll move to 4
P4/C4 Something, as a natural form, must always exist
P5/C5 Therefore the universe is eternal.
I'm using "natural form" so we all understand I'm referring to natural states of existence and not some idea or concept.

Well I didn't want to write the whole thing is Formal Logic. So I used widget.

As for what Deem was telling you. Anything that begins "Therefore" should be a conclusion.

But let me start with some definitions.

Thing = a thing
Nothing = No thing at all
Something = vague thing
Universe = all things

P1 Every (a thing) that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 (No thing at all) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore (No thing at all), in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore (vague thing), in a natural form, must always exist
P5 (all things) is eternal

And my contentions.
P1 Every (a thing) that exist must logically be able to exist
I agree.

P2 (No thing at all) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
While we don;t have any experience with "nothing", we can't say it is logically impossible unless you can find an internal logical error, or an external logical error. "nothing" is independent of any other thing, so no External logical error can exist. And because "Nothing" has no properties that can be in conflict with each other. 0 is equal to 0. So "nothing" is logically possible. For instance it is logically possible an entity does not exist.

P3 Therefore (No thing at all), in a natural form, cannot exist
You can make an argument that it doesn't exist in this universe. Which is automatically conceded because "nothing" doesn't exist. When something is described as nothing it is inferred to be non-existent.

I think the confusion is tho "nothing" is No thing.. "nothing is not an entity. It is not existent. It is isn't something. "Nothing" is the absence of properties, values, structure, ect.. Actually Every "nothing" is equal. Every "nothing" is the exact same "nothing". 0 is the center in a graph while you have a 1 down, 1 up, 1 right, 1 left. But only one 0 on a graph.

P4 Therefore (vague thing), in a natural form, must always exist
Well this hasn't been supported. A thing exists. Is it possible for it to not exist? yes that is possible.

Is it possible that All things that exist to not exist?

Now you could argue that there has to be something that exists independently of all other things. And due to infinite regress that thing would be eternal. Always existing.

P5 (all things) is eternal
This doesn't connect with your previous premises. The question arises

P1. If anything exists it can not exist.
P2 The universe exists.
C1 Therefore the universe can not exist.

Remember "nothing" is not a thing. It is not an entity or object that can be counted like things can be counted.

You seem to be arguing, That a thing can not be nothing because nothing does not exist.

That's like saying: A thing that exists can not be nonexistent because nonexistence does not exist.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:52:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:28:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:14:09 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:57:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:39:55 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:06:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

P2 is unsubstantiated. You assume it.

P4 assumes infinite time which, again, is unsubstantiated.

P3, P4 and P5 are conclusions not propositions.

A very poor logical construction.

I have no formal training in logical construction. So It may be fair that my formalization isn't structured correctly. But as I understand it, there should be at least one conclusion. Otherwise, what are you trying to prove. Also, can two conclusions be used to arrive at a third? I would think so.
To the rest of your criticism. P2 isn't assumed. I've spent many hours and read two books on "nothing." I find no argument, logic or evidence that a state of nothing can exist. Nothing isn't definable, identifiable, or testable.

Of course not. If it were, it would not be nothing. And who would do the defining, identifying or testing?

Right, which is why I find there to be significant problems with the concept of nothing. If you cannot say what it is, if you cannot say there it is, if you cannot sample it, what right do you have to think it is possible? Can you give me a reason to think nothing is a possible state of existence?

Your problem is the final word, 'existence'. As soon as you use it you are assuming time since that is what it means to exist, to persist in time for some interval. When you assume time (space-time) you are immediately taken away from talking about nothing. Nothing is non-existence. I can conceive of my own non-existence. I wasn't around 100 years ago and I wasn't aware of it and had no means to sample it. It doesn't mean it wasn't true.

I don't think that is correct. You must ask the question what is time? As it turn out, time is a physical process. Time is the repetition of events, the rotation of the Earth, the vibration of a atom in an atomic clock. Time flows forward due to entropy and the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, basically entropy.
On my quest to try and get to nothing. The best I could do was get to an infinite void. In that state, time doesn't exist. There is no events happening. There is no entropy. Meaning, there is no time. Yet in theory or imagination, that void would exist and time wouldn't. By stating something exists, that doesn't imply time does. If that state of existence has no events happening, then there is no time in it.

Second part of that paragraph. Just because you where absent consciousness, that has no bearing on any existence nor anything relating to time. Your quote, "nothing is non-existence." As I've said, nothing has many problems. Again, "nothing is non-existence." Either you have nothing or you have something. Nothing cannot exist in non-existence. Also, if this is your definition, can you tell me how you would know that non-existence is a possible state? Simply defining it in that way doesn't make it possible. Example: Squirkle, a squirkle is the combination of a square and circle. Squirkle is defined but not possible. Can non-existence exist?

There is no reason to think nothing can exist.

So you are saying because an intelligent being made of something and living in something cannot conceive of nothing, then nothing is impossible? That would be an obvious fallacy since you can only arrive at that position by existing in a state of non-nothing.

No I'm not saying that. I freely concede I cannot prove P2 is correct. I have good reasons to think it is correct. I have no good reasons to think it isn't. Therefore I give more weight to the prospects that it is correct. Feel free to attack it if you wish. I think that is the place to attack.

See above.

"P4 assumes infinite time." This is no assumption and follows directly from the previous arguments. If nothing cannot ever exist, than something must always exist. That is simple logic and easily true. If the nothing conclusion is correct.

No. If time were finite your statement "if nothing cannot ever exist [in all of time], then something must always exist" would still be true. Nothing there eliminates the possibility of finite time. Therefore you are just assuming infinite time.

I'm not assuming infinite time. Infinite time follows from the conclusion that nothing cannot exist. If nothing cannot exist (I think this is true, but cannot prove it, the reason for believing it true are better than the reasons for believing it false) then something must always exist. Notice the word "always" that is eternal.

Exactly. You are assuming your conclusion by incorporating the word 'always'. Nowhere have you justified it.

It is justified. Since you aren't attacking P2 at the moment. Let's (for the sake of this point) assume it's true. If nothing isn't a state that can exist, then the state of nothing can never exist. (there's you time word. It isn't assumed. It falls right out of the statement that nothing cannot exist, P2) If the state of nothing can never exist, then something must always exist. There is our eternal time. Once again, it falls right in our laps if P2 is true. This is because P2 would always be true. That is an eternal statement and that is where our infinite time comes from.

Right there infinite time fell right in our laps from the conclusion that nothing cannot exist.

No. It didn't follow. You just introduced the word 'always' (all of time) out of nowhere (pun intended).

Asking when the "first" thing happened in infinite time is an invalid question

Huh?

Sorry, I'm having this conversation with 3 people. That sentence wasn't for you.

Looking back at it, your correct in my labeling error. I will correct them to
C3, C4, C5
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 2:36:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:41:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:00:38 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:35:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Let me see if I have this straight.

P1 All ((Some Widget )) that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 (( No Widget at all)) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore ((No Widget at all)), in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore ((Some widget)), in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

Is that what you mean? If so I have some contentions with the logic used.

Not really sure what the "widget" example is implying. I will try and clarify a bit. Then hit me with your criticisms.

P1 Anything that exists must logically be able to exist.
This seems true as a requirement. How could something exist that cannot logically exist? That's a contradiction
P2 Nothing, as a natural form of existence, isn't logically sound.
Much thought has gone into this. I don't think nothing is a possible state of existence. But this is probably the point to attack. I cannot prove it true. I can only argue that it is.
P3 or C3 (I'm not sure which is the correct term) Looking back at it, P2 and P3 basically the same. I'll move to 4
P4/C4 Something, as a natural form, must always exist
P5/C5 Therefore the universe is eternal.
I'm using "natural form" so we all understand I'm referring to natural states of existence and not some idea or concept.

Well I didn't want to write the whole thing is Formal Logic. So I used widget.

As for what Deem was telling you. Anything that begins "Therefore" should be a conclusion.

But let me start with some definitions.

Thing = a thing
Nothing = No thing at all
Something = vague thing
Universe = all things

P1 Every (a thing) that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 (No thing at all) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore (No thing at all), in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore (vague thing), in a natural form, must always exist
P5 (all things) is eternal

And my contentions.
P1 Every (a thing) that exist must logically be able to exist
I agree.

P2 (No thing at all) , as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
While we don;t have any experience with "nothing", we can't say it is logically impossible unless you can find an internal logical error, or an external logical error. "nothing" is independent of any other thing, so no External logical error can exist. And because "Nothing" has no properties that can be in conflict with each other. 0 is equal to 0. So "nothing" is logically possible. For instance it is logically possible an entity does not exist.

A few things on this. Since we are talking about existence of nothing in the form of a natural state, I think the logical error is claiming that nothing exists. I think existence is the logical problem. Nothing cannot have any properties, otherwise it would be something. If nothing exists, than it would have properties of existence. So nothing cannot have properties, yet exists? That seems like a logical problem.
Generally the person than moves to define nothing as non-existence. Well then, does nothing exist in this non-existence? That seems to be a logical problem as well. Or maybe, "non-existence exists." What? Logical problem again.
A few of your quotes I disagree with. "0 is equal to 0. So "nothing' is logically possible." This doesn't follow. First O is a measurement of quantities. The measurement of quantities would have to exist in a state that could measure quantities. But, the main issue is we aren't talking about numbers that represent concepts. We are talking about existence itself. Does zero exist? If yes, then that is something.
I think your making an unjustified assumption. I think one that many make since we walk around using the word nothing so frequently that we assume it's an option before we really dive into thinking about nothing. Here's my very brief take on the issues with nothing. 1. you cannot define it. So what justification can you have for thinking it's an option if you cannot even say what it is? 2. You cannot identify it. If you could it would have properties that are identifiable. 3. No human has any experience with nothing (no an absent of consciousness isn't nothing, it's an absent of consciousness, which is something) Given these three serious issues, no human should claim any degree of confidence that nothing is a possible state. We cannot define it. We cannot identify it. We cannot have any experience with it. What give us the right to assume it's an option?
I think this boils down to existence. Can non-existence exist? What would non-existence exist in? Where would it be when there is no where to be?

P3 Therefore (No thing at all), in a natural form, cannot exist
You can make an argument that it doesn't exist in this universe. Which is automatically conceded because "nothing" doesn't exist. When something is described as nothing it is inferred to be non-existent.

I think the confusion is tho "nothing" is No thing.. "nothing is not an entity. It is not existent. It is isn't something. "Nothing" is the absence of properties, values, structure, ect.. Actually Every "nothing" is equal. Every "nothing" is the exact same "nothing". 0 is the center in a graph while you have a 1 down, 1 up, 1 right, 1 left. But only one 0 on a graph.

This really this is a historical issue. 2000 years ago, philosophers were fine with defining nothing as an absence of "things," items basically. At that time, an infinite void would've been an acceptable definition. Which an infinite void, although free of things, is still a thing itself. So the definition from a theological perspective change into nothing (no thing) being less than emptiness, being less than a void. If we stop at the earlier definition, then nothing is logically fine, IMO. If we use the theologians definition, we get to non-existence existing. That's where the problems are. I don't think you can get to non-existence existing. I think the closest to nothing that is possible is an infinite void. Infinite in time and space. Imagine a infinite void. Only space and locations existing. If you remove a location from the void, what is there? Can you remove empty space? Is empty space removable? If empty space isn't removable, then the closest you can get to nothing is an infinite void.

Is it possible that All things that exist to not exist?

Now you could argue that there has to be something that exists independently of all other things. And due to infinite regress that thing would be eternal. Always existing.

P5 (all things) is eternal
This doesn't connect with your previous premises. The question arises

P1. If anything exists it can not exist.
P2 The universe exists.
C1 Therefore the universe can not exist.

Remember "nothing" is not a thing. It is not an entity or object that can be counted like things can be counted.

You seem to be arguing, That a thing can not be nothing because nothing does not exist.

That's like saying: A thing that exists can not be none
ThesnamisSorreall
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:50:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal
I actually think your logic structure is just fine. There are a few problems I have with your theory, but the way you presented it was perfectly clear.

I like your logic up until P3 and P4. Lines P1 and P2 do not seem to aid the argument of P3. If I am reading your arguments correctly, P1 is arguing that all things that exist have the ability to exist. P2 is arguing that it is logically possible for all things that exist to exist.

But these two lines do not support the idea that what does exist does not have the capacity to not exist. It proves very well that what does exist has the capacity to exist, but it does not demonstrate that what does exist HAS to exist, and does not have the capacity to not exist.

Why isn't it possible for everything in a natural form to not exist? Obviously, it is hard for us to fathom, because if nothing natural existed then we wouldn't exist and probably would not be there to witness the non-existence. But why isn't this possible? I do not follow the logic to that statement.

In regard to the universe being eternal, what do you think of this...I don't know if you mean the universe has always existed, but if you do here is a thought. A year in the future has not happened yet. A year in the past is not happening right now. Therefore, we are at a certain point in time, albeit an ever moving point.
If the universe has always existed, then our past would be infinite, correct? The future has not yet happened, but the past leading up to the present (obviously) has. If the past that leads up to the present is infinite, but nothing beyond the present yet exists, then the present is at the end of infinity, is it not? Obviously, infinity cannot have an end. So it is most logical to conclude that the past is not infinite. Is that fair?

If you are arguing that the universe existed at a certain point, and existed into the future at an infinitely, but not the past, then that is a different matter entirely, of course.
ThesnamisSorreall
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:54:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:23:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Now apply this to an eternal God. Answer your own questions. Lol.

I could not resist answering this. We are referring to things that exist in the natural form. Basically, matter. God is not made of matter (for the sake of argument, let us not yet argue about whether Jesus is matter) and thus He is outside of the Time-Space continuum. God does not need to originate from a singular event the way matter does because while matter is bound by time and space, while God is not.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:55:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 1:52:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:28:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:14:09 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:57:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:39:55 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:06:29 AM, dee-em wrote:

P2 is unsubstantiated. You assume it.

P4 assumes infinite time which, again, is unsubstantiated.

P3, P4 and P5 are conclusions not propositions.

A very poor logical construction.

I have no formal training in logical construction. So It may be fair that my formalization isn't structured correctly. But as I understand it, there should be at least one conclusion. Otherwise, what are you trying to prove. Also, can two conclusions be used to arrive at a third? I would think so.
To the rest of your criticism. P2 isn't assumed. I've spent many hours and read two books on "nothing." I find no argument, logic or evidence that a state of nothing can exist. Nothing isn't definable, identifiable, or testable.

Of course not. If it were, it would not be nothing. And who would do the defining, identifying or testing?

Right, which is why I find there to be significant problems with the concept of nothing. If you cannot say what it is, if you cannot say there it is, if you cannot sample it, what right do you have to think it is possible? Can you give me a reason to think nothing is a possible state of existence?

Your problem is the final word, 'existence'. As soon as you use it you are assuming time since that is what it means to exist, to persist in time for some interval. When you assume time (space-time) you are immediately taken away from talking about nothing. Nothing is non-existence. I can conceive of my own non-existence. I wasn't around 100 years ago and I wasn't aware of it and had no means to sample it. It doesn't mean it wasn't true.

I don't think that is correct. You must ask the question what is time? As it turn out, time is a physical process. Time is the repetition of events, the rotation of the Earth, the vibration of a atom in an atomic clock. Time flows forward due to entropy and the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, basically entropy.

I don't think that I agree with your definition of time but I fail to see the relevance anyway.

On my quest to try and get to nothing. The best I could do was get to an infinite void.

Stop right there. How do you measure infinite without a spatial reference? The concept is meaningless. Nothing has no dimensions. It can't have.

In that state, time doesn't exist. There is no events happening. There is no entropy. Meaning, there is no time.

Circular, but I agree.

Yet in theory or imagination, that void would exist and time wouldn't.

There you go with that word 'exist' again. In what sense can anything (especially nothingness) be said to exist from moment to moment when there are no moments? It's an incoherent concept.

By stating something exists, that doesn't imply time does. If that state of existence has no events happening, then there is no time in it.

Give me a definition of existence which doesn't assume time. I think you will struggle. As you said, without time there are no events. Nothing happens and nothing can happen. How could an imaginary observer then determine if something existed? It is not possible since there is no way to make an observation, not even in principle, since there is no time within which it can be done. Without time nothing can be said to exist.

Second part of that paragraph. Just because you where absent consciousness, that has no bearing on any existence nor anything relating to time.

I was simply explaining that I can entertain the concept of non-existence.

Your quote, "nothing is non-existence." As I've said, nothing has many problems. Again, "nothing is non-existence." Either you have nothing or you have something. Nothing cannot exist in non-existence.

Exist? See above.

Also, if this is your definition, can you tell me how you would know that non-existence is a possible state? Simply defining it in that way doesn't make it possible. Example: Squirkle, a squirkle is the combination of a square and circle. Squirkle is defined but not possible. Can non-existence exist?

See above. You are getting lost in the use of the word 'exist'. I can easily entertain the idea of there being a state of nothing rather than something, but see below.

There is no reason to think nothing can exist.

So you are saying because an intelligent being made of something and living in something cannot conceive of nothing, then nothing is impossible? That would be an obvious fallacy since you can only arrive at that position by existing in a state of non-nothing.

No I'm not saying that. I freely concede I cannot prove P2 is correct. I have good reasons to think it is correct. I have no good reasons to think it isn't. Therefore I give more weight to the prospects that it is correct. Feel free to attack it if you wish. I think that is the place to attack.

See above.

"P4 assumes infinite time." This is no assumption and follows directly from the previous arguments. If nothing cannot ever exist, than something must always exist. That is simple logic and easily true. If the nothing conclusion is correct.

No. If time were finite your statement "if nothing cannot ever exist [in all of time], then something must always exist" would still be true. Nothing there eliminates the possibility of finite time. Therefore you are just assuming infinite time.

I'm not assuming infinite time. Infinite time follows from the conclusion that nothing cannot exist. If nothing cannot exist (I think this is true, but cannot prove it, the reason for believing it true are better than the reasons for believing it false) then something must always exist. Notice the word "always" that is eternal.

Exactly. You are assuming your conclusion by incorporating the word 'always'. Nowhere have you justified it.

It is justified. Since you aren't attacking P2 at the moment. Let's (for the sake of this point) assume it's true. If nothing isn't a state that can exist, then the state of nothing can never exist. (there's you time word. It isn't assumed. It falls right out of the statement that nothing cannot exist, P2) If the state of nothing can never exist, then something must always exist. There is our eternal time. Once again, it falls right in our laps if P2 is true. This is because P2 would always be true. That is an eternal statement and that is where our infinite time comes from.

It occurs to me that this line of discussion is futile until the problem of time is resolved. To talk about "can never exist" assumes the duration of time, whether time is finite or infinite. Therefore discussing it in the context of there being nothing (including time) is incoherent. I can give you a better argument for the existence of something rather than nothing.

P1: For something to exist it must persist for a non-zero period of time.
P2: A state of true nothingness precludes time.
P3: Without time any particular state has no (zero) duration.
C: True nothingness lasts for zero time and therefore cannot be said to exist.

This doesn't necessarily give you an eternal universe though. I think.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:44:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:54:14 AM, ThesnamisSorreall wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:23:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Now apply this to an eternal God. Answer your own questions. Lol.

I could not resist answering this. We are referring to things that exist in the natural form. Basically, matter.

The early universe had no matter. Was it unnatural? The comparison here is between universe and God. You choosing a part of the universe to focus on is an attempt to move the goalposts.

God is not made of matter (for the sake of argument, let us not yet argue about whether Jesus is matter) and thus He is outside of the Time-Space continuum.

Non sequitur. Firstly, you are asserting that God is not made of matter. How do you know? What then is he made of? Secondly, you are implying that his is not a natural form, whatever that means. Again, how do you know? Lastly, how does God not being made of matter (an assertion) put him 'outside the universe', assuming there is an outside. What if God were made of energy? You also need to explain what existence outside the universe means. The universe, by definition, is everything. If you know something which physicists don't, let's hear it and please table your evidence for it.

God does not need to originate from a singular event the way matter does because while matter is bound by time and space, while God is not.

Another non sequitur. I don't know what you mean by 'bound'. Do you mean contingent? If so, why does God not being contingent on our space-time infer that he has no origin? I don't see how it follows. If God is outside of our space-time then he experiences no time. Without time he cannot act or even think since there is no before and after an action or thought. In fact, you cannot even say that he exists sans time since a definition of existence is persistence in time for a duration.

Btw, I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions (courtesy of bronto).

What was the first thing for the eternal God? What was his first event?
Was there a first event?

If these questions can be asked for an eternal universe (which doesn't therefore require a creator), I fail to see why they can't be asked for an eternal God.
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:22:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Self-reinforcing dimensions of quasi-causal domains interacting harmonically in the only stable vector of infinite Hilbert space which allows for a range of feedback-induced frame boundaries of relative causality to maintain a stable cascade of causation.

Requires a quantum computer to model mathematically, unfortunately, and since it deals with variable-intensity harmonics between potentially infinite sets it tends to be a bit hard to prove with cartesian or linear algebra.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:01:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
To clarify (as much as possible):

Define anything with the potential to exist as `0;
Define any other thing with the potential to exist and have any interaction with `0; along any vector as `4;
Define the causal vector of interaction between `0; and `4; as _5;
This allows any causal frame to be defined as a 3-part differential relationship of possibility: (((`0;/`4;))_5;) (that's pi over 2 pi differential, not division - no latex)

It should also be noted that Tau is used in place of 2pi (a two-dimensional relationship of the integral of the two pi potentials, thus 2pi = tau to differentiate the variables).

Thus any causal frame is described by the above equation without having to know the causative ordering of the frame.

Applying this methodology to measurements taken in quantum physics, the pi-tau relationship of the above equation describes an entangled pair. The lambda function defines the causal direction of any transition (communication) of causative interaction within the frame. Observation of the causal interaction within the frame can vary in result, and thus it is perfect for describing wave-particle duality, HUP, the quantum-harmonic oscillator for probabilities, and many of the other difficult problems in particle physics.

It does this by explaining that the nature of quantum interactions within a causal frame (any Fermionic matter) is causatively locked within a closed temporal frame that is greater than 0 (singularity) but less than infinity. The observable and measurable properties of the causal frame (mass, velocity, position, nuclear properties) are all results of entangled interactions between the frame of the observer and the closed frame. Interactions are dictated by the quantum frequency of the interactions relative to the outside frame.

At the most basic entangled pair level, causality is merely 1 and based on ZFC (axiom of choice) in set theory. Thus measuring the causal order of a single dimension (single pair interaction) becomes impossible from any outside frame. They are effectively instantaneous outside of the frame.

When more than two particles are in a closed frame, however, there is the concept of time relative to the frame itself. The interactions of any pair (expressed as a single dimension) is causatively ordered before the effect on the third. The change to the third creates an oscillation of change in it's nearest entangled neighbor, creating a causative feedback through the original pair that disrupts their nearly infinite closed loop, creating a 3-part harmonic interaction.

Carrying this through all measured quantum particles in particle physics gives a baseline for the number of interactions (not ordering of interactions) within entangled sets.

Mapping specific harmonic signatures to quantum field theory yields results that are in keeping with current experimental evidence.

The amount of computational power to model a Hilbert space interaction of elementary particles as closed loops is a stochastic programming problem, however. Worse, it is necessary to use linear algebra to calculate the outcomes of nuclear physics based on elementary particles rather than probability mechanics as are currently used.

In easy-to-understand terms, the problem is on the NP side of NPHARD just to prove, let alone solve.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:02:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
well that got mangled by the site...

so much for being able to type in greek alphabet
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 10:41:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 8:02:19 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
well that got mangled by the site...

so much for being able to type in greek alphabet

Have you understood the OP? Because your calculations come nowhere close to proving the universe is eternal. In fact you are further behind in your mathematical model and calculation than some of the other members who used simple logic or the bible to arrive at a plausible explanations.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:39:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:50:35 AM, ThesnamisSorreall wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal
I actually think your logic structure is just fine. There are a few problems I have with your theory, but the way you presented it was perfectly clear.

I like your logic up until P3 and P4. Lines P1 and P2 do not seem to aid the argument of P3. If I am reading your arguments correctly, P1 is arguing that all things that exist have the ability to exist. P2 is arguing that it is logically possible for all things that exist to exist.

P1 is arguing that anything that could exist, must logically be able to exist. It doesn't have to exist now. I think P1 is easily true. Example, "That item exists although it logically cannot exist." This statement would be false, making P1 true. The existence of the item means it logically can exist. P1 claims that whatever can (can, not does) exist is logically able to exist.
P2 is my claim that the existence of a "nothing state" doesn't meet the criteria of P1. I find the concept of a nothing state existing to have logical flaws and therefore cannot exist. If P1 is correct
P3 is what is see now as just a rephrasing of P2. It could be removed.
P4 If nothing can never exist, something must always exist. This seems to follow correctly from P2/P3
P5 If something must always exist, then the universal is eternal, since existence would be inside the universe


But these two lines do not support the idea that what does exist does not have the capacity to not exist. It proves very well that what does exist has the capacity to exist, but it does not demonstrate that what does exist HAS to exist, and does not have the capacity to not exist.

I think your reading a bit to much into P1 and P2. My fundamental claim is that in order for anything to be able to exist, it must logically be able to exist. Whether that existence is in the past, present, or future is irrelevant. The Sun can logically exist, although it hasn't always existed and won't always exist.

Why isn't it possible for everything in a natural form to not exist? Obviously, it is hard for us to fathom, because if nothing natural existed then we wouldn't exist and probably would not be there to witness the non-existence. But why isn't this possible? I do not follow the logic to that statement.

"Why isn't it possible for everything in a natural form to not exist?" This isn't my argument. This question is for you I think. Is it possible for everything to not exist? Would "nothing" be in the set of "everything?" Or would nothing not qualify as a qualify as a thing (no thing) and thus not be a part of everything? Is your not existence something? Is it some kind of state?
I think your sentence also gets to the heart of the main problem with the nothing state. If we define the nothing state as non existence, does the nothing state exist? Non existence exists. How can there be any existence in non existence? That seems to violate logic, the law of non contradiction.
More problems with nothing. Nothing isn't definable. The best we can say is what it isn't. What right do we have to believe the nothing state can exist when we cannot say what it is? Nothing isn't identifiable. It would need properties that can be identified, making it something. We couldn't have any experience with nothing, that would make it something. Basically we could have zero knowledge of nothing, this doesn't give us a right to assume it's an option.
More issues. Start removing everything you can think to remove. At some point you get to completely empty space stretching into the infinite. Can empty space be removed? Is empty space removable? If I imagine empty space in a glass, and I imagine I can remove a cube of that space, what replaces it? No space? A hole? Some type of less than empty space? Is there any reason for me to think I can remove empty space? Is there any reason to think such a thing less than empty space can exist?
For these reasons, I find more support for P2 being correct than it not being correct.

In regard to the universe being eternal, what do you think of this...I don't know if you mean the universe has always existed, but if you do here is a thought. A year in the future has not happened yet. A year in the past is not happening right now. Therefore, we are at a certain point in time, albeit an ever moving point.
If the universe has always existed, then our past would be infinite, correct? The future has not yet happened, but the past leading up to the present (obviously) has. If the past that leads up to the present is infinite, but nothing beyond the present yet exists, then the present is at the end of infinity, is it not? Obviously, infinity cannot have an end. So it is most logical to conclude that the past is not infinite. Is that fair?

If you are arguing that the universe existed at a certain point, and existed into the future at an infinitely, but not the past, then that is a different matter entirely, of course.

I like your time question and have several thoughts on it. When I say the universe is eternal, I mean it has always existed. (I'm also not defining the universe as only our observable area of the universe. There is no reason to think only the observable universe is the complete universe, maybe it is (although that is somewhat arrogant view and places humans as some special observer) maybe it isn't.
I think of infinite time somewhat like numbers. My "present" might be represented by the number 9, yet 10 will arrive in just a moment, then 11 will arrive a moment after that, and so on. If I think that each moment will have a following moment, I could imagine traveling infinitely forward in moments. Now if I turn around, being infinitely forward in moments, I would see an infinite number of moments into the past. If you believe time can stretch forward into the infinite, then you must accept it can stretch backward into the infinite. It actually makes a nice symmetry, infinite forward infinite backward.
But time might not always exist, so thinking of infinite time might be a moot point. We should ask the question, "what is time?" Time seems to have three main components, all physical. 1, time is the ordering of events 2, time is the repetition of events (the rotation of the Earth=day, x vibrations of a quartz crystal=one minute) 3, time flows forward due to entropy and the 2nd law of thermal dynamics (same thing really).
Also, Einstein's relativity tells us time runs at different rates depending on physical conditions such as speed and gravity. Time needs to be physical to be effect by physical processes.
If you imagine a completely empty state in which no events are taking place, time wouldn't exist in that state. Thinking about infinite time forward and backward assumes events are occurring.
It might be best not to think of eternity as infinite time. An eternally empty state would have no event and thus no time, yet it would still be eternal.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:51:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:54:14 AM, ThesnamisSorreall wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:23:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:12:31 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/20/2016 11:56:15 PM, NoMagic wrote:
I suspect "nothing" isn't a possible state of existence for nature. If this is true, some form of nature must always exist. Thus the universe would be eternal.

Formulation
P1 All things that exist must logically be able to exist
P2 Nothing, as a natural state of existence, isn't logically possible
P3 Therefore nothing, in a natural form, cannot exist
P4 Therefore something, in a natural form, must always exist
P5 The universe is eternal

What was the first thing in the eternal universe? What was its first event?
Was there a first event?

Now apply this to an eternal God. Answer your own questions. Lol.

I could not resist answering this. We are referring to things that exist in the natural form. Basically, matter. God is not made of matter (for the sake of argument, let us not yet argue about whether Jesus is matter) and thus He is outside of the Time-Space continuum. God does not need to originate from a singular event the way matter does because while matter is bound by time and space, while God is not.

You did say for the sake of argument, so I'm going to argue a bit here
1: I find it interesting how believers can know by what rules their god's existence is governed by, yet have no direct understanding of what their god is. How can you make such a claim as to know by what rules his existence must play by?
2: "He is outside space and time" How do you even know such a thing is possible? How do you know "outside space and time" exists? If he doesn't exist in time, he can never do anything. Time is required to order events. No time, no events, no decisions, no actions
3: "matter is bound by time and space, while god is not" I would like to know how you know this to be true?
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 1:29:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:55:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:52:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:28:48 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 1:14:09 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:57:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:39:55 AM, NoMagic wrote:


Circular, but I agree.

Yet in theory or imagination, that void would exist and time wouldn't.

There you go with that word 'exist' again. In what sense can anything (especially nothingness) be said to exist from moment to moment when there are no moments? It's an incoherent concept.

Your quote from earlier clears this up the perceived "incoherent concept." "I think I disagree with your definition of time." This isn't really my definition of time. It would be a physics related definition of time. In physicists Sean Carroll's book, "From Eternity To Here, the quest for a complete theory of time" it is made clear that time is a physical process. If time slows with speed (a physical event) if time slows with increased gravity (a physical event) time must be physical. I cannot force you to accept the definition, but that's what it is. Time is physical. It is the sequencing of events, the repetition of events, flows forward due to increasing entropy.
In a state where all these things are absent (a infinite void) there is no time in that state. A void could exist eternally and have no time in it. It may seem counter intuitive, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Colors don't exist in nature, yet we are sure they do.

By stating something exists, that doesn't imply time does. If that state of existence has no events happening, then there is no time in it.

Give me a definition of existence which doesn't assume time. I think you will struggle.

Ok. I've already done this but I'll do it again.
An infinite void exist.
Since the void implies the absence of stuff, there are no things in the void. No things means no events. No events means no time. The void can be eternal, but contain no time.

As you said, without time there are no events. Nothing happens and nothing can happen. How could an imaginary observer then determine if something existed? It is not possible since there is no way to make an observation, not even in principle, since there is no time within which it can be done. Without time nothing can be said to exist.

I agree this cannot be observed. But just because it cannot be observed, this doesn't mean the logic is unsound. Things that exist, or can exist, or cannot exist, don't require an observe to exist. I'm pretty sure if all observers where removed from the universe, our sun would still be here. P2 If nothing isn't logically sound, then nothing cannot exist (if P1 is correct) regardless of observer

Second part of that paragraph. Just because you where absent consciousness, that has no bearing on any existence nor anything relating to time.

I was simply explaining that I can entertain the concept of non-existence.

I think your making a definition error. absence of consciousness doesn't equal non existence. Rocks don't have consciousness, but they exist.

Your quote, "nothing is non-existence." As I've said, nothing has many problems. Again, "nothing is non-existence." Either you have nothing or you have something. Nothing cannot exist in non-existence.

Exist? See above.

Also, if this is your definition, can you tell me how you would know that non-existence is a possible state? Simply defining it in that way doesn't make it possible. Example: Squirkle, a squirkle is the combination of a square and circle. Squirkle is defined but not possible. Can non-existence exist?

See above. You are getting lost in the use of the word 'exist'. I can easily entertain the idea of there being a state of nothing rather than something, but see below: : : : : :
I would like to clear what's going on in here up, the above few paragraphs. I'm not really sure of your points or objections.

"I'm getting lost in the use of the word exist." Tell me what you mean by this.

"I can easily entertain the idea of there being a state of nothing rather than something" I'm not sure this proves anything. I can entertain the idea of a squirkle existing (round square). But the squirkle falls to logic and thus doesn't exist, regardless if I can entertain the idea or not. Instead of saying you can entertain the idea, can you argue against P2's claim that the "nothing state" falls due to logic problems and thus isn't a possible state? Just defining nothing as non existence, or stating you can entertain the idea of nothing existing, doesn't support the your premise that nothing is a possible state. Can you make the case for your belief that the "nothing state" can exist?