Nothing cannot exist

[STT]

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.

I didn’t use infinity to define eternal if you read my post carefully again.

 

[EnosJadon]

Then replace me by universe.

Okay, let’s do that. Then according to your initial argument, the thing which necessarily exists, is me.

 

[EnosJadon]

I didn’t use infinity to define eternal if you read my post carefully again.

Then please stop referring to a beginning which exists infinitely far in the past. As if it’s impossible to get from then to now. No such point need exist.

 

[EnosJadon]

I didn’t use infinity to define eternal if you read my post carefully again.

The problem as I see it, is that the universe is a temporal entity, therefore it requires a beginning somewhere in time. Because as you rightly point out, an infinite regress isn’t possible. Therefore the universe must come from something which doesn’t exist in time. But what?

 

[STT]

The problem as I see it, is that the universe is a temporal entity, therefore it requires a beginning somewhere in time. As you rightly point out, such an infinite regress isn’t possible, therefore the universe must come from something which doesn’t exist in time. But what?

Then the argument in OP follows. The universe exists, there is a beginning for the universe, this means that the nothing cannot exist, this means that the existence of the universe is necessary.

 

[davidv]

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.

It is disingenuous to us a definition that leads to erroneous conclusions.

Since contingent things are real they cannot the opposite of real. Proving the fallaciousness of your definition.

 

[STT]

It is disingenuous to us a definition that leads to erroneous conclusions.

Since contingent things are real they cannot the opposite of real. Proving the fallaciousness of your definition.

What is your definition of real and how a real thing could be contingent?

 

[davidv]

What is your definition of real and how a real thing could be contingent?

I am real. I exist.
I am also contingent on my parents and God. Without my parents and God I would not exist, that is I would not be real.

 

[STT]

I am real. I exist.

That is not a definition.

I am also contingent on my parents and God. Without my parents and God I would not exist, that is I would not be real.

That is temporal causality. I am talking about the fact that God sustains you in each moment of your life. Why you should need a sustainer if you are real and not illusion.

 

[davidv]

That is not a definition.

My definition is easily derived from what I wrote.

That is temporal causality.

That is also contingency.

I am talking about the fact that God sustains you in each moment of your life.

Which make me contingent, while remaining real.

Why you should need a sustainer if you are real and not illusion.

Because I am contingent, and real.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

I am glad you are interested in this topic because it is very interesting, as we both agree.

Something must exist necessarily, yes, or else absolutely NO THING would exist. We both agree on that.

But how does something’s existence suggest that it exists necessarily? That’s what you seem to be saying.

I exist, but I could very well not have, if, for instance, my parents never met.

The Universe exists, but what about that fact suggests it must exist? Just as I can imagine reality without my existence, I could also imagine a reality without our universe’s existence. Perhaps another universe with different conditions could have exited, if there were some physical reality outside our own universe.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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

So, for example, imagine a super-intelligent being (say, an extra terrestrial) from a different universe who had the intellect and capacity to create our Universe. That ET could very well have chosen not to create the Universe.

 

[STT]

I am glad you are interested in this topic because it is very interesting, as we both agree.

I am glad that you are also interested in the topic.

Something must exist necessarily, yes, or else absolutely NO THING would exist. We both agree on that.

Yes.

But how does something’s existence suggest that it exists necessarily? That’s what you seem to be saying.

Yes. Because of three facts: (1) The universe exists, (2) There is a beginning for the universe and (3) There is no point before the beginning. It is easy to understand that the nothing cannot exist because of these facts. The nothing can only exist if there is no universe.

I exist, but I could very well not have, if, for instance, my parents never met.

That is totally another topic. We are talking about the nothing or something.

The Universe exists, but what about that fact suggests it must exist? Just as I can imagine reality without my existence, I could also imagine a reality without our universe’s existence. Perhaps another universe with different conditions could have exited, if there were some physical reality outside our own universe.

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

 

[STT]

So, for example, imagine a super-intelligent being (say, an extra terrestrial) from a different universe who had the intellect and capacity to create our Universe. That ET could very well have chosen not to create the Universe.

Well, then we have to change our notation: The nothing → the nothing and universe → something/ET and His universe. So the argument holds. The existence of our universe then become conditional as your example of your existence in the previous post.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The very fact that the Universe had a beginning, as you say, means that the universe itself does not exist necessarily – that is, the universe does not have within itself its own reason for existing. Its nature is not to exist if it in fact it has a beginning; rather, its nature is to participate in existence. Something cannot come from the lack of anything.

So if it is true that some “thing” must exist necessarily, or else there would be no “thing” currently in existence, and if the Universe began to exist (as you say), then what follows is that there must exist some “thing” in addition to the Universe – something whose nature is to exist.

Perhaps we are speaking past each other because I’m not so sure what your aim is at with this thread. For example, are you meaning to suggest God is not necessary? Or are you meaning to say that yes, even if God exists, our universe must exist (without choice)?

 

[STT]

The very fact that the Universe had a beginning, as you say, means that the universe itself does not exist necessarily – that is, the universe does not have within itself its own reason for existing. Its nature is not to exist if it in fact it has a beginning; rather, its nature is to participate in existence. Something cannot come from the lack of anything.

Well, yes, the universe has a beginning but there is no point before beginning. Having a beginning doesn’t necessary means that the universe has to come into existence.

So if it is true that some “thing” must exist necessarily, or else there would be no “thing” currently in existence, and if the Universe began to exist (as you say), then what follows is that there must exist some “thing” in addition to the Universe – something whose nature is to exist.

The fact that the universe has a beginning does mean that it began to exist. The beginning is just a starting point. That is it.

Perhaps we are speaking past each other because I’m not so sure what your aim is at with this thread. For example, are you meaning to suggest God is not necessary?

That is something we can conclude. We however cannot exclude God and creation which means that we have two options: One with God, the act of creation on nothing which it has to be something and one without God as it is illustrated in OP.

Or are you meaning to say that yes, even if God exists, our universe must exist (without choice)?

That is another topic. I have another thread on this topic here. There, I discuss whether God can decide on act of creation or not. The conclusion to my understanding is that God cannot decide since He is pure act and has no potentiality in His mind. That is true because one needs options in its mind in order to decide and options are potential where God cannot have. God by definition is creator hence the act of creation is necessary considering the fact that the universe exists and the fact that He cannot decide.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, yes, the universe has a beginning but there is no point before beginning. Having a beginning doesn’t necessary means that the universe has to come into existence.

The fact that the universe has a beginning does mean that it began to exist. The beginning is just a starting point. That is it.

That is something we can conclude. We however cannot exclude God and creation which means that we have two options: One with God, the act of creation on nothing which it has to be something and one without God as it is illustrated in OP.

That is another topic. I have another thread on this topic here. There, I discuss whether God can decide on act of creation or not. The conclusion to my understanding is that God cannot decide since He is pure act and has no potentiality in His mind. That is true because one needs options in its mind in order to decide and options are potential where God cannot have. God by definition is creator hence the act of creation is necessary considering the fact that the universe exists and the fact that He cannot decide.

Please define “beginning,” then. For I had understood you using it to mean that there was a point when the Universe first existed in time and space. As a definition, the Universe is time and space. So I conclude the Universe does not exist necessarily.

In other words, perhaps it is correct to say that the Universe has always existed in time – for the very definition of the Universe includes time.

But there are good reasons to think the “ultimate reality” is not within time, for the past cannot be infinite.

 

[EnosJadon]

… for the past cannot be infinite.

This is where you may be categorically wrong. You’re assuming that reality begins in the past and proceeds linearly through the present, because that’s the way that you perceive it. But that’s not necessarily true. Time may in fact behave differently, in which case it may be perfectly reasonable for the past to be just as infinite as the future.

When building an argument using logic, it’s best to assume as little as possible.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This is where you may be categorically wrong. You’re assuming that reality begins in the past and proceeds linearly through the present, because that’s the way that you perceive it. But that’s not necessarily true. Time may in fact behave differently, in which case it may be perfectly reasonable for the past to be just as infinite as the future.

When building an argument using logic, it’s best to assume as little as possible.

But how could an intimate past be possible? Besides, science points to the beginning of our Universe, which is the only physical reality we can observe, anyway.

An infinite future is possible precisely because we assume a beginning.

 

[Glassjester]

in which case it may be perfectly reasonable for the past to be just as infinite as the future.

Not possible.

An infinite time period, by definition, cannot end.

Yet, if the past is infinite, then the time period from “before now” to “now” is an infinite time period… which just ended.