The problem, or non-problem, of nothingness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2017, 04:20 PM
RE: The problem, or non-problem, of nothingness
I think what you are trying to say is "This sentence is false." which naturally leads to the rejection of the Law of the Excluded Middle which leads to many-valued logics.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
02-06-2017, 10:24 PM
RE: The problem, or non-problem, of nothingness
(02-06-2017 03:45 PM)big green mouth Wrote:  Nothing is better than a ham sandwich. Tongue

> In that case, give me your ham sandwich and enjoy your nothing. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gwaithmir's post
03-06-2017, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2017 12:28 PM by SomethingWitty2.)
RE: The problem, or non-problem, of nothingness
I'll just copy this from Baruch Spinoza's Page from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

Catholic Theology absolutely loves delving into this type of stuff, there is so many apologetics in this field.... I can find more later tonight. I have heard that the Law of Contradiction prevents nothing from = God, and thus God did it and sooo so much more.

I'll just copy and paste this apologetic until I can do more research tonight. None of which I actually believe; however, the nothing coming from nothing is covered by so many theologian philosophers as they spent their entire lives trying to defend their religion logically. Seeing how the Catholic Church Co-opted much of the Greek logics, I have found that you need to explore other logic systems to poke wholes in classical logic (the world in which they spent so much time trying to make their Faith logically water tight).

"Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic “ontological proof for God’s existence”. Spinoza writes that “if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.”)

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SomethingWitty2's post
05-06-2017, 08:08 PM
RE: The problem, or non-problem, of nothingness
(03-06-2017 12:19 PM)SomethingWitty2 Wrote:  I'll just copy this from Baruch Spinoza's Page from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

Catholic Theology absolutely loves delving into this type of stuff

You know Spinoza wasn't Catholic, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2017, 04:46 PM
RE: The problem, or non-problem, of nothingness
(02-06-2017 04:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I think what you are trying to say is "This sentence is false." which naturally leads to the rejection of the Law of the Excluded Middle which leads to many-valued logics.

we didn't come from nothing and we will not return to nothing. Also, in engineering we don't have "if X then ....." we have to put something in for x many times. Philosophers don't have to answer to what is going on, they get to make shit up as they need to.

As for the start of the universe its just a matter of what freaks one out more more. something from nothing or something forever. neither one has to have an omni type god in it.

We also can just deal with what we are in right now. Describe the system we are in and as we discover more describe it 'bigger".

I am not not sure why some people need a "god thing" but I am equally dismayed by reject anything reasonable or 'lack belief in anything' claims. Not really, both are filling an emotional need and we all know those don't have to be based in observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: