Can minus zero existence exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
Hello,

It is common among modern atheists to say that the world doesn’t really exist because there is another world that is -1 existence which cancels this world out, so there really is no need of a creator. Is this negative existence even possible? Please provide good arguments. thanks
 
I suspect you’re thinking of pair production. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Matter and its anti can appear, and the net “new” energy be zero. I would not call the antiparticles negatice existence, though. Not as the philosophers understand existence, and I would not consider it a way resolve theist objections.
 
I agree that even anti-matter does seem to have matter as its essence. Are there any philosophical arguments that below-zero -existence is ridiculous?
 
I hope some atheists comment on this thread. How can there be anything but existence and nothingness, nothingness not even existing??
 
This brings to mind a quote which David Letterman attributed to Ike Turner: “Womans be thinkin’ too much.”
 
This appears to be an attempt at a conservation principle, like conservation of momentum or electric charge, except I’m not sure that conservation of existence makes any sense.

In any case, if there is a universal framework in which existence of material things must be counterbalanced by anti-existence, then what of the existence of that framework? For any of that to happen, wouldn’t there have to be some kind of background (like empty space, but emptier) with its own laws of nature consistent with the proposed conservation law?
 
thinkandmull said:
Hello,

It is common among modern atheists to say that the world doesn’t really exist because there is another world that is -1 existence which cancels this world out, so there really is no need of a creator. Is this negative existence even possible? Please provide good arguments. thanks
Click to expand...
For Big Bang I recommend you to read this.
The leading idea is called the “inflationary universe” model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known.
Click to expand...
For more detail on how things get structured after Big Bang I recommend you to read “A Brief History Of Time” by Stephen_Hawking. You can find the book in here for free.
 
STT, do you have any comments on this anti-particle thing?
 
thinkandmull said:
STT, do you have any comments on this anti-particle thing?
Click to expand...
The laws of matter doesn’t equally apply to matter and anti-mater. There was the same amount of matter as anti-matter in early stage of universe though. The difference is because the universe cooled since its starting and gradually formed what we see now. Most part of matter and anti-mater annihilated each other and formed energy. Just tiny amount of matter is left. I recommend to read the following short article.
 
“During the first fractions of a second of the big bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence.”

If there is no action, nothing pops into existence. For there to be action, there must something acting. That is what we called God. Did I just prove theism for you?
 
Both particles and anti-particles are still matter.

If a particle / anti-particle pair arises spontaneously out of a quantum substrate, a quantum substrate is not nothing. It is itself something. Why does the quantum substrate exist? Why do space and time exist, as they must in order for matter and energy to have non-zero extension in space and in time?
 
The question of why doesn’t affect atheists. You need to ask how, not why
 
thinkandmull said:
“During the first fractions of a second of the big bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence.”

If there is no action, nothing pops into existence. For there to be action, there must something acting. That is what we called God. Did I just prove theism for you?
Click to expand...
Big Bang was an state at which universe was an exploding hot entity. The stuff could be simply there at the beginning of time.
 
Extract from one of William Lane Craig’s video’s:

It has been suggested by skeptics and atheists that virtual particles prove that something can come from nothing. Supposedly the quantum vacuum (from which virtual particles come from) is nothingness. William Lane Craig explains that virtual particles do not literally come from nothing because the quantum vacuum is actually energy. So, it cannot be nothing! Unfortunately, in the popular sciences people have suggested that the quantum vacuum is nothing. Also, critics often point to the quantum vacuum and virtual particles as a refutation of the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. To suggest that something (ie the quantum vacuum) is nothing is absurd, let alone the idea that something can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing!

youtube.com/watch?v=7oQVAj8HxP0
 
STT said:
Big Bang was an state at which universe was an exploding hot entity. The stuff could be simply there at the beginning of time.
Click to expand...
The motions of the universe can’t go back forever, so something must have started the series that is outside of the casual series and outside of causality.
 
STT, I would really like to get you to see my argument on this point if you want to talk on this thread for a little while 🙂
 
thinkandmull said:
The motions of the universe can’t go back forever, so something must have started the series that is outside of the casual series and outside of causality.
Click to expand...
The motion of the universe go back to the starting of universe. The point of beginning is the only exception since time cannot be created and it has a beginning. Time in principle allows causality to be real so it cannot be caused. That leads into infinite regress if you assume that time can be caused since you need time to explain changes in time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top