I can’t agree that we refer to “nothing” as a state prior to the beginning. “Nothing” cannot be defined precisely. However, it is clearly an opposite to “being”, to existence.We refer to nothing as a state of existence, lack of being, prior to beginning (creation point for example). There is however no point before beginning because there is nothing before hence nothing cannot exist. Something must exist if nothing cannot exist. That thing can only be the universe.
I didn’t say so (bold part). I can argue it differently: The beginning is the first point that something exists. Something exist at all other points after beginning. Hence nothing cannot exist.I can’t agree that we refer to “nothing” as a state prior to the beginning. “Nothing” cannot be defined precisely. However, it is clearly an opposite to “being”, to existence.
Well, that is the problem which is raised in the OP. If nothing cannot exist then the only thing that can exist is the universe because by definition God is the creator which is not necessary in this case.We usually say the God created the Universe “out of nothing”. This means that He did not need any “primeval matter” or anything else to create it. However, this does not mean that there was “nothing” before the creation of the world. There was God.
I still don’t see why You argue that “nothing” cannot exist.I didn’t say so (bold part). I can argue it differently: The beginning is the first point that something exists. Something exist at all other points after beginning. Hence nothing cannot exist.
Well, that is the problem which is raised in the OP. If nothing cannot exist then the only thing that can exist is the universe because by definition God is the creator which is not necessary in this case.
That is because there is a point that which the universe exists initially, beginning. There is however no point before beginning point but after. This means that we can only have existence. Hence nothing cannot exist.I still don’t see why You argue that “nothing” cannot exist.
Your philosophy reminds me of the school of Elea. They claimed that “nothing” does not exist. From this, they deduced that there can be no movement,
Why the bold part is correct?because any movement can be only in the direction of nothing;
I however can understand the illusion of movement in block universe.
Yes, considering the fact that the universe exist. You can write this in syllogism:So… Existence is necessary?
Nothing can be considered as a state of existence. Isn’t it?Also, I remember making this argument five years ago. It may be better to just state that everything we know that exists could not be. “Nothing” is also not a thing. It’s a negation. It’s possible that “no thing exists” or that no thing is in existence."
I think this is due to a limitation of human language to describe the state of nothingness more than it is a factual description of it. We don’t have terminology that is accurate enough for us to draw conclusions about the real nature (or lack of it) of nothingness. We can’t describe things that we have not experienced, and all we have experienced is existence.We refer to nothing as a state of existence, lack of being, prior to beginning (creation point for example). There is however no point before beginning because there is nothing before hence nothing cannot exist. Something must exist if nothing cannot exist. That thing can only be the universe.
I don’t think that we have such of problem. Nothingness is lack of existence in time, space, matter, etc.I think this is due to a limitation of human language to describe the state of nothingness more than it is a factual description of it. We don’t have terminology that is accurate enough for us to draw conclusions about the real nature (or lack of it) of nothingness. We can’t describe things that we have not experienced, and all we have experienced is existence.
Yes, considering the fact that the universe exist. You can write this in syllogism:
Well, I rather agree with Bill Martin at this point that this seems to be a language issue. You cannot “have” nothing. You cannot have a state of not-being be. Things would just not be. This doesn’t mean any moments of nothing could exist. There just wouldn’t be any moments at all, either. But that doesn’t make moments themselves necessary. They could also not be.
- The universe exists
- The universe has a beginning (universe cannot be eternal and this can be proven)
- There is no point before the beginning but after
- Existence is necessary
Nothing can be considered as a state of existence. Isn’t it?
I don’t think I’d call it a state at all. It’s not an empty set. It’s not even having something to call an empty set.Could you please provide your argument or give me the link to your thread?
I was discussing with another friend in another thread about “nothing” and I had this mental state about “nothing” which I cannot explain. I just mentioned that the concept is ambiguous. Now when I think again I see that I can define nothing as a empty set and I cannot go to that mental state again so I am slightly puzzled.Well, I rather agree with Bill Martin at this point that this seems to be a language issue.
I have an impression that I could feel what you mean with the bold part but I am not sure. Could you please expand it?You cannot “have” nothing. You cannot have a state of not-being be. Things would just not be. This doesn’t mean any moments of nothing could exist. There just wouldn’t be any moments at all, either. But that doesn’t make moments themselves necessary. They could also not be.
Actually I think it is straight forward for people to understand that existence of universe is necessary hence there is no need for existence of God.Anyway, should your argument succeed, it seems to only help the case for an ultimate reality whose existence is equivalent to its essence: something that is Being itself, aka God. A Thomist, for example, would still find act and potency to be the most plausible explanation of change, and any composition that exists would still require explanation / a cause. Undermining arguments for God may not be your point here, anyway.
Why nothing cannot be an empty set?I don’t think I’d call it a state at all. It’s not an empty set. It’s not even having something to call an empty set.
That is alright.My previous topic was another private forum. Perhaps it was pointless to mention it. But I have made the same argument you are making now, following the same logic, so I understand where you’re coming from. (That is not in any way meant to be patronizing).
This is how I conceive of it as well, but there are problems. I can close my eyes and picture a rock existing, and I can even imagine the lack of a rock. But when I do that, I still imagine the rock’s surroundings minus the rock, so all I am really doing is imagining a *different * existence. I can’t conceptualize the non-existence of everything, except as all-encompassing blackness without form. But black is a color I recognize, so even then, I am imagining some kind of an existence, even if it’s just the existence of a color.I don’t think that we have such of problem. Nothingness is lack of existence in time, space, matter, etc.
Once I managed to grasp a state of mind about “nothing” and that was ambiguous. Now I cannot grasp that state of mind again but I can still define a state of existence without any attribute. Whether such a state of existence could exist is subject of discussion. The existence is necessary and sufficient if nothing cannot exist otherwise existence is necessary considering the fact that universe exist.This is how I conceive of it as well, but there are problems. I can close my eyes and picture a rock existing, and I can even imagine the lack of a rock. But when I do that, I still imagine the rock’s surroundings minus the rock, so all I am really doing is imagining a *different * existence. I can’t conceptualize the non-existence of everything, except as all-encompassing blackness without form. But black is a color I recognize, so even then, I am imagining some kind of an existence, even if it’s just the existence of a color.
But it’s worse, because blackness is really a lack of light. I am now just taking an attribute (color) of real, existing things my eyes have seen and applying that attribute as my definition of nothing. I’m still thinking of something, because even that attribute is real.
So when we speak about nothing, we’re stuck with terms that are really unsuitable. Saying stuff like “the existence of nothing” is nonsensical, but it’s the best we can do. Our vocabulary just can’t extend beyond our experience. We can’t describe colors that do not exist. We can’t describe space aliens except by forming compositions of things we have experienced. Saying they have 17 eyes and green skin is just piecing together stuff we have experienced into a composite that doesn’t exist. And since we have never experienced complete and total non-existence, we are left with really poor terminology for it. I’m not sure we can ever get very far in a discussion of it because of this problem.
An empty set is still something. Emptiness. Blackness. A vacuum. We have all these ways of visualizing nothing, but they’re all inadequate, as they are all still something. The absence of being is an empty space, or an empty moment, or an empty anything. It’s just no thing.I was discussing with another friend in another thread about “nothing” and I had this mental state about “nothing” which I cannot explain. I just mentioned that the concept is ambiguous. Now when I think again I see that I can define nothing as a empty set and I cannot go to that mental state again so I am slightly puzzled.
Well, I think this goes back to my last point. A “state” is by its very nature still something. If we are going to truly grasp not-being, we have to throw that out as well. I think I was just trying to illustrate the contradiction inherent in our language and in our thinking. We ask ourselves “can not-being be”, or “can not-being exist?” There is a contradiction there, but not one I think implies that existence is necessary. The only way we can try to illustrate not-being is by trying to think of it in terms of being. I think we can on some level *conceive *what it is intellectually, but I don’t think we can imagine it, or form a mental image of it, or anything, because that type of activity always frames it in terms of being, which is just not the same thing. It’s like we can only think in orange but are trying to speak of blue. If I can only think in orange, and can only describe things in terms of orange, it’s going to be rather useless in imagining blue. Maybe I can describe what nanometer light produces blue and other such things, but I’m never going to be able to turn my orange thoughts blue or describe blue in terms of my limited thinking of orange. Okay, I’ve gone on a rather silly and probably unhelpful tangent.I have an impression that I could feel what you mean with the bold part but I am not sure. Could you please expand it?
Whether the universe has always been or not doesn’t really effect Aquinas’ arguments for God. He is concerned that things change. That things are composed in themselves. That the universe is composed. That things are directed towards certain ends. Just because existence is necessary doesn’t explain away any of the arguments Aquinas was concerned with. I mean, what you are saying is that existence is necessary. That is a far cry from saying this universe is necessary. And a Thomist describes God as simple, uncomposed, and whose being is Being itself, and is necessary to explain change, composition, teleology, and degree degree. God just fits the bill for existence being necessary. When I first made this argument that “existence is necessary” myself, I had little knowledge of classical theist arguments and I had proposed it as an alternative explanation to God, but the more I’ve learned of classical theism, the better I understood it doesn’t address any of the oldest arguments for God.Actually I think it is straight forward for people to understand that existence of universe is necessary hence there is no need for existence of God.
Nothing just doesn’t have any attribute as an empty set.An empty set is still something. Emptiness. Blackness. A vacuum. We have all these ways of visualizing nothing, but they’re all inadequate, as they are all still something. The absence of being is an empty space, or an empty moment, or an empty anything. It’s just no thing.
I see but nothing can be simply defined as a state of existence without any attributes, like an empty set. You are trying to say nothing is even less than an empty set. Why? I don’t understand.Well, I think this goes back to my last point. A “state” is by its very nature still something. If we are going to truly grasp not-being, we have to throw that out as well. I think I was just trying to illustrate the contradiction inherent in our language and in our thinking. We ask ourselves “can not-being be”, or “can not-being exist?” There is a contradiction there, but not one I think implies that existence is necessary. The only way we can try to illustrate not-being is by trying to think of it in terms of being. I think we can on some level *conceive *what it is intellectually, but I don’t think we can imagine it, or form a mental image of it, or anything, because that type of activity always frames it in terms of being, which is just not the same thing. It’s like we can only think in orange but are trying to speak of blue. If I can only think in orange, and can only describe things in terms of orange, it’s going to be rather useless in imagining blue. Maybe I can describe what nanometer light produces blue and other such things, but I’m never going to be able to turn my orange thoughts blue or describe blue in terms of my limited thinking of orange. Okay, I’ve gone on a rather silly and probably unhelpful tangent.
Actually I can respond to the bold part. The syllogism I provided need some correction (bold part is added):Whether the universe has always been or not doesn’t really effect Aquinas’ arguments for God. He is concerned that things change. That things are composed in themselves. That the universe is composed. That things are directed towards certain ends. Just because existence is necessary doesn’t explain away any of the arguments Aquinas was concerned with.** I mean, what you are saying is that existence** is necessary. That is a far cry from saying this universe is necessary. And a Thomist describes God as simple, uncomposed, and whose being is Being itself, and is necessary to explain change, composition, teleology, and degree degree. God just fits the bill for existence being necessary. When I first made this argument that “existence is necessary” myself, I had little knowledge of classical theist arguments and I had proposed it as an alternative explanation to God, but the more I’ve learned of classical theism, the better I understood it doesn’t address any of the oldest arguments for God.
I had already addressed the empty set part and the last part doesn’t need a response so I’ll just stop here.
I think it is matter of definition. Of course, there could not be anything like nothing if it is not-being. We can however define it as a state of existence, a being, with no attribute.An empty set is still a set. Not-being is something ontologically different than being. It would be better put as no-set instead of an empty set.
I cannot follow you here. What do you mean?4 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3.
Not true according to Paul J. Steinhardt, professor at Princeton.(universe cannot be eternal and this can be proven)
There is an argument against him: A eternal universe means that one has to come from infinite past to reach now. This is logically impossible since it requires infinite waiting.Not true according to Paul J. Steinhardt, professor at Princeton.
I don;t see where there is any rule of logic broken by assuming that time extends infinitely in the past as does the real line. Please advise us of what rule of logic you are thinking about. The numbers on the real line can be taken to represent the years. So 1054 can represent the year of the East West Schism. 2016 can represent the year of today. The point -2036 (minus 2036) can represent the year that the pyramids were beginning to be built. There is no rule of logic that says that the real line cannot be extended infinitely into the negative territory. We are now at 2016, which does not require infinite waiting. It is just a point at which we are presently situated on the infinite timeline. No rule of logic is violated as is proven by mathematics which breaks no logical rule by assuming an infinite real line. Actually, no rule of logic is broken by assuming an infinite planar surface. Mathematics is perfectly in accord with all the rules of logic.There is an argument against him: A eternal universe means that one has to come from infinite past to reach now. This is logically impossible since it requires infinite waiting.