Nothing cannot exist

[catholic1seeks]

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.

It is quite profound to come to the realization that there must be some “thing” that exists necessarily. That is, some “thing” must, by its very nature, exist – or else there would in fact be NOTHING at all.

But from this, it does not follow that the Universe exists necessarily. Reason and experience suggest this: If the Universe is defined as the sum total of all of physical reality, and if physical reality does not exist necessarily, then the Universe cannot be the ultimate reality.

Of course there are ways to show that the Universe itself is contingent, as I am sure people in this thread are attempting to do.

 

[STT]

It is quite profound to come to the realization that there must be some “thing” that exists necessarily. That is, some “thing” must, by its very nature, exist – or else there would in fact be NOTHING at all.

That is correct.

But from this, it does not follow that the Universe exists necessarily.

The necessity for existence of universe comes from the fact that the universe exists and the nothing cannot exist.

Reason and experience suggest this: If the Universe is defined as the sum total of all of physical reality, and if physical reality does not exist necessarily, then the Universe cannot be the ultimate reality.

The universe is the ultimate reality considering the previous comment.

Of course there are ways to show that the Universe itself is contingent, as I am sure people in this thread are attempting to do.

Well, the universe if contingent/illusion if it requires something else, God to exist. Otherwise it is not contingent/real and does not need a sustainer.

 

[davidv]

That is correct.

The necessity for existence of universe comes from the fact that the universe exists and the nothing cannot exist.

The universe is the ultimate reality considering the previous comment.

Well, the universe if contingent/illusion if it requires something else, God to exist. Otherwise it is not contingent/real and does not need a sustainer.

Why do you think contingent is equivalent with illusion?

 

[STT]

Why do you think contingent is equivalent with illusion?

Illusion needs a sustainer.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Nothing to my definition is an empty set.

The empty set, being a set, is not nothing. The empty set is something. It is a set which can be operated on just as any other set. Nothing being a set is therefore something and as such it exists. Therefore, your statement “Nothing cannot exist” is faulty, because the empty set exists as an object in the mathematical theory of sets.

 

[Tomdstone]

The necessity for existence of universe comes from the fact that the universe exists and . the nothing cannot exist.r.

No. The empty set exists as a mathematical object. You might as well say that the numbers 3, 4, 5 do not exist.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think we already discuss that the eternal universe cannot exist. Cyclic universe is a kind of eternal universe.

Your argument there is fallacious as well since it erroneously assumes a starting point at infinity, which there is not.

 

[davidv]

Illusion needs a sustainer.

Here are the common definitions of the two words:

illusion, noun.

1. something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.
3. an instance of being deceived.

contingent, adjective

1. dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on or upon):
   Our plans are contingent on the weather.
2. liable to happen or not; uncertain; possible:
   They had to plan for contingent expenses.
3. happening by chance or without known cause; fortuitous; accidental:
   contingent occurrences.
4. Logic. (of a proposition) neither logically necessary nor logically impossible, so that its truth or falsity can be established only by sensory observation.

Note first that they are different parts of speech, noun vs. adjective.
Since there is no deception present, nor implied, in contigency there can be no equivalency between the two.
Proving to me that your OP is attacking a straw man. Where “straw man” equals a fictitious depiction of reality for the sole purpose of winning an argument.

 

[STT]

The empty set, being a set, is not nothing.

That is my definition. Otherwise we are dealing with an ambiguous thing which we cannot even define.

Therefore, your statement “Nothing cannot exist” is faulty, because the empty set exists as an object in the mathematical theory of sets.

Of course nothing could exist if the universe does not exist. In another way, universe is necessary exists because it exists and it has a beginning hence nothing cannot exist if universe exist.

 

[STT]

Your argument there is fallacious as well since it erroneously assumes a starting point at infinity, which there is not.

I didn’t say that there is a starting point at minus infinity. Lets think of a point which is very far in past, in minus infinity. Can we reach from this point to now? No.

 

[STT]

Here are the common definitions of the two words:

Note first that they are different parts of speech, noun vs. adjective.
Since there is no deception present, nor implied, in contigency there can be no equivalency between the two.
Proving to me that your OP is attacking a straw man. Where “straw man” equals a fictitious depiction of reality for the sole purpose of winning an argument.

We can have our own definition when it comes to discussion. Illusion, opposite to real, to my definition is a state of existence which needs a sustainer.

 

[Tomdstone]

That is my definition. .

Your definitions appear to be totally wrong because it would mean that nothing is something, namely a particular set. Tell me who ever says that nothing is a set, or that nothing is a state of existence, except for yourself.

 

[STT]

Your definitions appear to be totally wrong because it would mean that nothing is something, namely a particular set. Tell me who ever says that nothing is a set, or that nothing is a state of existence, except for yourself.

What is your definition of nothing?

 

[EnosJadon]

I didn’t say that there is a starting point at minus infinity. Lets think of a point which is very far in past, in minus infinity. Can we reach from this point to now? No.

I think that you have erroneously conflated “eternal” with “infinite”, which is perhaps understandable. To be eternal, i.e. to exist absent time, isn’t the same as existing for an infinite amount of time. Thus that which is eternal doesn’t have a beginning in time, but instead has no beginning at all.

 

[Tomdstone]

I didn’t say that there is a starting point at minus infinity. Lets think of a point which is very far in past, in minus infinity. Can we reach from this point to now? No.

No, because, you can speak about any time point in the past, just as you can reach any negative integer on the real line.

 

[STT]

I think that you have erroneously conflated “eternal” with “infinite”, which is perhaps understandable. To be eternal, i.e. to exist absent time, isn’t the same as existing for an infinite amount of time. Thus that which is eternal doesn’t have a beginning in time, but instead has no beginning at all.

I understand the meaning of eternal, something which has no beginning. Something which does not have a beginning exist in minus infinity as it exists in now. The problem is that we cannot no reach from a point in minus infinity to now hence the concept of eternal is wrong.

 

[EnosJadon]

Of course nothing could exist if the universe does not exist.

How do you know that this is true? The universe may be nothing more than an illusion which is dependent upon you, rather than you being dependent upon it?

How do you know?

 

[STT]

No, because, you can speak about any time point in the past, just as you can reach any negative integer on the real line.

I don’t understand you. We are not talking about negative integer.

 

[EnosJadon]

I understand the meaning of eternal, something which has no beginning. Something which does not have a beginning exist in minus infinity as it exists in now. The problem is that we cannot no reach from a point in minus infinity to now hence the concept of eternal is wrong.

But you’ve again conflated the two. It’s wrong to use the term infinity in any way, to define eternal. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

Just as it’s wrong to use spatial terms to define something which isn’t spatial.

 

[STT]

How do you know that this is true? The universe may be nothing more than an illusion which is dependent upon you, rather than you being dependent upon it?

How do you know?

Then replace me by universe.