"Could There Have Just Been Nothing At All?"

[In_Spiration]

Via Maverick Philosopher:

No doubt, things exist. At least I exist, and that suffices to show that something exists. But could it have been the case that nothing ever existed? Actually, there is something; but is it possible that there have been nothing? Or is it rather the case that necessarily there is something? Is it not only actually the case that there is something, but also necessarily the case that there is something? I will argue that there could not have been nothing and that therefore necessarily there is something.

1. Let S = Something exists and N = Nothing exists, and assume for reductio that N is possibly true.
2. If N is possibly true, then S, which is true, and known to be true, is only contingently true.
   Therefore
3. There are possible worlds in which S is false and possible worlds in which S is true. ( From 2, by definition of ‘contingently true’)
4. In the worlds in which S is true, something exists. (Because if ‘Something exists’ is true, then something exists.)
5. In the worlds in which S is false, it is also the case that something exists, namely, S. (For an item cannot have a property unless it exists, and so S cannot have the property of being false unless S exists)
6. Every proposition is either true, or if not true, then false. (Bivalence)

Therefore
7. Every world has something in it, hence there is no world in which nothing exists.
Therefore
8. N is not possibly true, and necessarily something exists.

Any good?

 

[Peter12rb]

I’m not sure of item #5 - I think things can be defined (can have a property) even if those things don’t exist. An example is heat/cold - from a general scientific viewpoint, cold doesn’t exist. It’s merely the absence of heat (though this description glosses over a lot of science).

However, I believe that even in a universe where no matter exists, God still exists. When you say ‘nothing exists’, do you mean nothing material, or no matter and no God as well?

Interesting post.

 

[Hyrophant]

I am nothing who exists as nothing but for God. At least I try to.

 

[devoutchristian]

#5 is incorrect. Suppose that God had created some other species of humans, we can speak about the characteristics of such people, even though they do not exist. Therefore it is not necessary that a thing exist in order to have properties.

 

[Lasting_faith]

All in all everything is possible but not very likely.

 

[mwic]

I agree that the logic burns down in #5

Here’s another reason why

1. an item cannot have a property unless it exists ]
2. Hypothetical item X has the property “does-not-exist”
3. X exists

The logical conclusion contradicts one of the premises

 

[TomFromMD]

Part of it comes down to the definition of a universe, and whether it is a thing or a set of related things. We can talk of an empty set, but it’s not really a thing. Its existence is definitional, not actual.

One might think of a universe as a relationship between space, time, energy, and matter. If so, it may be that your question should be “can a universe exist where energy and matter don’t exist”. The answer there would depend on what space and time really are, which seems to me to be a empirical question, not a rational one.

 

[mwic]

This is fun:

1. Propositions affirm or deny a predicate to a subject
2. Subject and predicates only exist in minds
   A. Propositions only exist in minds
3. “Something exists” is a proposition (S)
4. S exists only in minds (If A is true)
   B. There is no possible world in which S is the only thing that exists (For S to exist, minds must also exist)

For clarity, #2 is somewhat-compacted. Expanded it might read: “affirmation and denial are mind-actions that operate on mind-objects, for example subjects and predicates”

 

[Memaw]

#5 is incorrect. Suppose that God had created some other species of humans, we can speak about the characteristics of such people, even though they do not exist. Therefore it is not necessary that a thing exist in order to have properties.

It exists only in our imagination, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Via Maverick Philosopher:

Any good?

Oh please, no more " thought problems, " they prove nothing. But just FYI, the Catholic Church solomnly teaches that God freely created the world, He was not compelled to do so. So yes, it was possible that He might not have created the universe. But undoubtedly did. But before he did, nothing existed except the Divine Trinity.

Linus2nd

 

[mwic]

Oh please, no more " thought problems, " they prove nothing.

Maybe not, but they are (in my opinion) a wonderful use of one’s time and mind. Perhaps this isn’t the forum for you?

No more chess games, they accomplish nothing!

 

[TomFromMD]

Suppose that God had created some other species of humans, we can speak about the characteristics of such people, even though they do not exist.

I always thought it would be cool if, coming into contact with some species of alien, we found that Christ came to be with them too.
Alien:Hi, there. We're from the planet Zernock, and we'd like to talk to you about Jesus Christ.

 

[devoutchristian]

I always thought it would be cool if, coming into contact with some species of alien, we found that Christ came to be with them too.
Alien:Hi, there. We're from the planet Zernock, and we'd like to talk to you about Jesus Christ.

The problem with that of course, is that it’s equivalent to antipodeanism.

 

[Aloysium]

the universe has a beginning
there is no time outside of it
one cannot say therefore that nothing existed before the universe
there was no “before the universe”

when i think of nothingness, how i conceive of it is what i see behind my head: no darkness - nothing

 

[empther]

From original post:

1. There are possible worlds in which S is false that is, nothing exists ]

:bigyikes:

This is as stupid as it gets.
A world in which nothing exists would not be a world. Even that makes no sense, because the quote above is so ridiculous there’s no intelligent response.

“There is nothing so ridiculous that it can’t be found in the books of philosophers.”
– Cicero

 

[Linux]

Via Maverick Philosopher:

Any good?

It depends on what people mean by nothing. If you are just talking about empty space, then that is not nothing. Empty space exists objectively. But if you are talking about nothing in an ontological context, then it makes no logical sense to speak of absolutely nothing existing. If absolutely nothing existed at all, then it would be objectively true. But there is no objective true in nothing, since nothing is the absence of all objective truth because absolutely nothing is by definition the absence of all possible things.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Maybe not, but they are (in my opinion) a wonderful use of one’s time and mind. Perhaps this isn’t the forum for you?

No more chess games, they accomplish nothing!

This is a philosophy forum. But apparantly some folks don’t that philosophy is a science… One thing is isn’t; it is not a science devoted to " kids games." But it is true that because few seem to understand what philosophy is that it has been degernerating into a " kiddy " forum.

Linus2md

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Maybe not, but they are (in my opinion) a wonderful use of one’s time and mind. Perhaps this isn’t the forum for you?

No more chess games, they accomplish nothing!

Then perhaps we should call it the " games forum? " Because it is obvious that some people don’t realize that philosophy is a serious science which the Catholic Church has used to much advantage. But the Catholic Church doesn’t engage in games.

Linus2nd