More "something from nothing" talk
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2012, 04:20 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2012 04:54 AM by Buddy Christ.)
More "something from nothing" talk
I was watching recent TheAtheistExperience shows and saw this comment in the comment section.


"I've just realized that we can say with 100% certainty that "nothing" doesn't exist, has never existed and will never´╗┐ exist. Because "existence" itself is by definition a property of "something"! Therefore "nothing" can't have the propery of existence or in other words: It does not exist!

Therefore the statement "Something cannot come from nothing" is nonsensical."



Let's discuss absolute nothingness. Not Lawrence Krauss' version of nothing which is actually something, but "nothing," being non-existent by definition, or else contain the attribute "existence" which would make it something. Basically, this just rewrites the question, "Can something come from nothing?" to "Can existence come from non-existence?"

And initially, I want to say, "Yes, because at one point I didn't exist and now here I am" but then I think... "Existence is a state that was already here... it always exists because that's the whole idea behind the state of existence. I just entered into that realm." And then all of that is discarded when I realize that I was already here. I didn't materialize out of non-existence, all the parts of my body and self were already here in the construct of stars and matter and atoms coming together and breaking apart.

The state of nothingness isn't something, it doesn't exist. So to even talk ABOUT it is almost a logical contradiction. It is intrinsically impossible to discuss the nothing that theists are discussing.

But then that brings my line of thought back to the Big Bang and the suggestion that this is the moment that existence began. Logically, I have to believe that while time and the laws of nature may have began at that point, existence has always existed. That's precisely what it does. Existence can't "not exist" so it must follow that it has always existed.


P.S. It's approaching daylight and I haven't slept in about 36 hours, so this all may be nonsense. I'll decipher this gibberish on the morrow.




Edit:

And another sidenote before I try to actually sleep (probably give up and go get McDonalds breakfast):

If I'm wrong in my point and existence didn't always exist, then technically EVERYTHING came from nothing. Those are the two options as I see it. Either existence has always been, or everything as we know it came from nothing. So next time I'm asked, "Give me an example of something coming from nothing" I will say, "Everything."

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
05-03-2012, 05:27 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
I suppose technically you came into existence from two points. Firstly your mother released an egg from her ovaries..... this was fertilised by your fathers sperm and then you developed.

So your existence was split into two at one point I suppose????

Ill have a deeper thought about the rest before replying again.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2012, 06:16 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
I have nothing to say.

Except...

The flaw in your sleep deprived logic...

(05-03-2012 04:20 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  But then that brings my line of thought back to the Big Bang and the suggestion that this is the moment that existence began. Logically, I have to believe that while time and the laws of nature may have began at that point, existence has always existed. That's precisely what it does. Existence can't "not exist" so it must follow that it has always existed.

"always existed" requires Time. So the concept of existence may have existed before time existed but without time, there is no "always"

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-03-2012, 06:31 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
Yeah yeah, the applications of time and there is no "before" or "began" and all that. Perhaps we're just too bound by our own mind's inability to perceive a timeless existence to consider such an event.

So time and existence are codependent on each other. You can't have a "before" time for existence to be, and you need a state of existence for the concept of time to occur. You know what, this is too difficult and frustrating. Therefore a magical force did it, outside of all influences and capable of breaking all the rules of logic. This force is godly in nature and created everything in the universe.




And it goes by the name Chuck Norris.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Buddy Christ's post
05-03-2012, 07:28 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
(05-03-2012 06:31 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Therefore a magical force did it, outside of all influences and capable of breaking all the rules of logic. This force is godly in nature and created everything in the universe.


(slap) Your hysterical!!!!

(05-03-2012 06:31 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  And it goes by the name Chuck Norris.

Erm....bruce lee is harder Dodgy

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2012, 07:31 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
We're tool using monkeys and zero is a useful tool. To disregard utility would be unscientific.

As has been mentioned, time is the demon at the dinner table. When we speak of thingness, we automatically include our perception of thingness without acknowledging that perception is change over time. To speak of nothing is to embrace the eternal - timelessness - and love is void. God need not apply.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
I think, when talking about this things, we have a problem with an unnecessary dichotomy, I must say before my rant that I don't believe in the excluded middle principle, it's discriminatory for the middle Tongue

The universe doesn't seem to care about our metaphysical notions of existence and nothingness, it does seem to care about some sort of balance. I find virtual particles very interesting on this point, things popping into existence violating the principle of conservation of energy, this phenomenon illustrates very nicely how I understand the idea.
Basically nobody has ever seen the existence itself, it's a property of things that exist (despite the redundancy) but what if, and this is a big if, the existence and not-existence are one and the same, what if there's not intrinsic property that makes things exist and without it they're not, what if everything is nothing and nothing is everything? like 1 - 1= 0 from one side of the equation we have something and not something, and on the other side we have nothing, what if keeping the equation balanced is the primary property of the universe, no matter how one side of the equation looks like as long as in the other side it remains 0.

I think, the universe is one massive weird, complex and mind numbing equation, which solution is 0, and we are trying to figure out how the constants and variables work on the other side, from within that same equation, we're an equation trying to understand itself, knowing in the end, it's just nothing.

or maybe the result is 42 and I'm just plain wrong Big Grin

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
05-03-2012, 08:50 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
BC, this is the same line of thought that was discussed with the "God rock" analogy.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2012, 11:46 AM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
(05-03-2012 07:31 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  We're tool using monkeys and zero is a useful tool. To disregard utility would be unscientific.

As has been mentioned, time is the demon at the dinner table. When we speak of thingness, we automatically include our perception of thingness without acknowledging that perception is change over time. To speak of nothing is to embrace the eternal - timelessness - and love is void. God need not apply.

Not for the first time.... lost me!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-03-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: More "something from nothing" talk
(05-03-2012 11:46 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-03-2012 07:31 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  We're tool using monkeys and zero is a useful tool. To disregard utility would be unscientific.

As has been mentioned, time is the demon at the dinner table. When we speak of thingness, we automatically include our perception of thingness without acknowledging that perception is change over time. To speak of nothing is to embrace the eternal - timelessness - and love is void. God need not apply.

Not for the first time.... lost me!

You must be worshiping a lesser god than Gwyneth Paltrow. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: