"Nothingess" argument. Is this proof valid?

[Qoeleth]

Here is a new proof for the existence of God (and, indeed, the existence of everything).

Let us consider ‘nothing’, (i.e. nothing-ness) the non-Ent. Clearly, no predicates may be positively attached to nothing, e.g. it is incorrect to say, “Nothing(ness) is green”, “Nothing(ness) is a cloud/human/dog (i.e. anything)”

‘Nothing’ , is by definition, not ANYTHING.

Therefore any statement in the form: “Nothing is a …”, is always and necessarily false, since nothing is nothing, and nothing but nothing! Nothing cannot be anything at all.

If “Nothing is a X” is, then, always false, it follows that “something is a X” must always be true.

If the statement “Nothing is a God” is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, “Something is (a) God”, i.e. that God exists.

If this argument is valid (and sound), it would seem to establish also that everything (e.g. unicorns) exist, as Parmenides said “Everything exists”.

Can anyone precisely the logical invalidity, or false premise, here (apart from the obvious objection raised above, or intuitive unease)?

Good luck!

 

[theblindlead]

Here is a new proof for the existence of God (and, indeed, the existence of everything).

Let us consider ‘nothing’, (i.e. nothing-ness) the non-Ent. Clearly, no predicates may be positively attached to nothing, e.g. it is incorrect to say, “Nothing(ness) is green”, “Nothing(ness) is a cloud/human/dog (i.e. anything)”

‘Nothing’ , is by definition, not ANYTHING.

Therefore any statement in the form: “Nothing is a …”, is always and necessarily false, since nothing is nothing, and nothing but nothing! Nothing cannot be anything at all.

If “Nothing is a X” is, then, always false, it follows that “something is a X” must always be true.

If the statement “Nothing is a God” is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, “Something is (a) God”, i.e. that God exists.

If this argument is valid (and sound), it would seem to establish also that everything (e.g. unicorns) exist, as Parmenides said “Everything exists”.

Can anyone precisely the logical invalidity, or false premise, here (apart from the obvious objection raised above, or intuitive unease)?

Good luck!

your definition of nothing is such that the statement “nothing is a _______” could be replaced with certain things so as to make the statement true. the best example that i can think of is outer space which is nothingness which would make the logic look like this:

outer space=nothing=not anything
which would make your statement “nothing is a nothing” which is equivalent to saying “A is an A” which is a correct statement proving your logic wrong.

good try but i don’t think that it works…sorry

 

[cranster]

outer space is space and space is not nothing it is something. outer space is a vacuum that contains galaxies, stars, planets, moons, dust, gas, atoms, dark matter, dark energy, neutrinos… etc. Outer space is a part of the universe it is not a nothing it is a something.

 

[thewanderer]

Here is a new proof for the existence of God (and, indeed, the existence of everything).

Let us consider ‘nothing’, (i.e. nothing-ness) the non-Ent. Clearly, no predicates may be positively attached to nothing, e.g. it is incorrect to say, “Nothing(ness) is green”, “Nothing(ness) is a cloud/human/dog (i.e. anything)”

‘Nothing’ , is by definition, not ANYTHING.

Therefore any statement in the form: “Nothing is a …”, is always and necessarily false, since nothing is nothing, and nothing but nothing! Nothing cannot be anything at all.

If “Nothing is a X” is, then, always false, it follows that “something is a X” must always be true.

If the statement “Nothing is a God” is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, “Something is (a) God”, i.e. that God exists.

If this argument is valid (and sound), it would seem to establish also that everything (e.g. unicorns) exist, as Parmenides said “Everything exists”.

Can anyone precisely the logical invalidity, or false premise, here (apart from the obvious objection raised above, or intuitive unease)?

Good luck!

I think the problem is that you are using the word ‘nothing’ in two different ways and treating them both as if they are the same.

In one instance you are talking about nothing non-existenence, nothingness. In the other you are talking about it as a negation of all existing things.

Try re-writing your sentance ‘nothing is God’ as ‘nothingness is God’. If you mean the same thing by ‘nothing’ in both instances your argument should still be valid. When you use the word ‘nothingness’, however, it becomes clear that this argument does not prove God’s existance, all it proves is that non-existance is not God.

 

[MarkThompson]

Can anyone precisely the logical invalidity, or false premise, here (apart from the obvious objection raised above, or intuitive unease)?

Good luck!

I notices you stopped writing in the “(ness)” or “-ness” after “nothing” when you got to your key sentence. The problem with your argument is that you are confusing statements concerning the concept of nothingness with logical propositions of the form “nothing is an X” – which, you’ll notice can be rewritten “there isn’t anything that is a God.” Indeed, the fact that the word “nothing” appears in both of the types of sentences that you’re putting forward is just an accident of the English language. When you reword the latter sentence as I did, or express it according to typical formal logic ( ∄ x: x = God ), you can see that the word (and concept) “nothing” no longer factors in. Thus, that “nothingness is a God” is false has nothing to do with the question of whether there exists anything that is a God.

 

[slotty]

Here is a new proof for the existence of God (and, indeed, the existence of everything).

Let us consider ‘nothing’, (i.e. nothing-ness) the non-Ent. Clearly, no predicates may be positively attached to nothing, e.g. it is incorrect to say, “Nothing(ness) is green”, “Nothing(ness) is a cloud/human/dog (i.e. anything)”

‘Nothing’ , is by definition, not ANYTHING.

Therefore any statement in the form: “Nothing is a …”, is always and necessarily false, since nothing is nothing, and nothing but nothing! Nothing cannot be anything at all.

If “Nothing is a X” is, then, always false, it follows that “something is a X” must always be true.

If the statement “Nothing is a God” is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, “Something is (a) God”, i.e. that God exists.

If this argument is valid (and sound), it would seem to establish also that everything (e.g. unicorns) exist, as Parmenides said “Everything exists”.

Can anyone precisely the logical invalidity, or false premise, here (apart from the obvious objection raised above, or intuitive unease)?

Good luck!

Using this logic of Nothing being Not Something

0 = 0 is true
0 = 9 is false
0 = 7 is false

You’ve essentially concluded that

7 = 9 is true

When actually all you can conclude is

0 NOT = 9 is true
0 NOT = 7 is true

At least that’s how I would think on it

 

[Godmachine]

Here’s a thought:
Perhaps nothingness is the ultimate state of perfection. What could be more perfect than nothing?

 

[Qoeleth]

I think the problem is that you are using the word ‘nothing’ in two different ways and treating them both as if they are the same.

In one instance you are talking about nothing non-existenence, nothingness. In the other you are talking about it as a negation of all existing things.

Try re-writing your sentance ‘nothing is God’ as ‘nothingness is God’. If you mean the same thing by ‘nothing’ in both instances your argument should still be valid. When you use the word ‘nothingness’, however, it becomes clear that this argument does not prove God’s existance, all it proves is that non-existance is not God.

But is nothing identical with nothingness? I have been struggling with this question. If they are different, how are they different? It would seem that both are not ‘things’, but rather only concepts.

If nothingness is defines as “the concept of nothing”, “nothing”, in turn, can only be defined as a concept, since it is not a thing.

Is nothingness, then, the concept of a concept? This appears silly.

 

[Qoeleth]

Using this logic of Nothing being Not Something

0 = 0 is true
0 = 9 is false
0 = 7 is false

You’ve essentially concluded that

7 = 9 is true

When actually all you can conclude is

0 NOT = 9 is true
0 NOT = 7 is true

At least that’s how I would think on it

But, isn’t that latter what I am doing? Let’s call Nothing(ness) ‘0’ for now:

0 does not equal God
Therefore God does not equal 0
Therefore God = some non-zero (non-nothing) entity
Therefore God exists

This seems to be logical, is it not?

 

[thewanderer]

But is nothing identical with nothingness? I have been struggling with this question. If they are different, how are they different? It would seem that both are not ‘things’, but rather only concepts.

If nothingness is defines as “the concept of nothing”, “nothing”, in turn, can only be defined as a concept, since it is not a thing.

Is nothingness, then, the concept of a concept? This appears silly.

It’s not that the word nothing can’t mean what is meant by nothingness, it’s that this particular vocal sound can also mean something different when used in a different context. For each step of your argument you need to examine which meaning you are usin to come to your conclusion.

1. Nothing is x is a false statement. Nothing = non-existence
2. Nothing is God being false means that God is something, ie exists.
   In order to show that something else is meant by nothing in this case let me rephrase the sentence. * There is no thing whih is God* in this case nothing does not mean the idea of nothingness, rather in this context it is used to deny that any of the things which exist are God. In other words, in one case nothing is referring to nonexistence and in the other it refers to existing things and negates something (God) of them.

A similar example would be if I said

1. All bats are animals
2. The instrument used by baseball Players is a bat
3. Therefore baseball players use animals in baseball to hit the ball.

The conclusion is patently false as a the word bat is used in a different way in the two parts of the argument. Similarly, the use of nothing to mean different things in your argument nullifies the argument.

Does this make it any clearer?

 

[Godmachine]

But is nothing identical with nothingness? I have been struggling with this question. If they are different, how are they different? It would seem that both are not ‘things’, but rather only concepts.

If nothingness is defines as “the concept of nothing”, “nothing”, in turn, can only be defined as a concept, since it is not a thing.

Is nothingness, then, the concept of a concept? This appears silly.

And here I thought I was the only one who took the time to ponder such nonsense. This is a topic that can really tie your mind in knots. The problem with the concept of nothing is that as soon as you try to conceptualize nothing, it becomes something, a concept. Nothing and nothingness are not identical. Nothing is just nothing. Nothingness, I think is best defined as the essence or quality of nothing (which would have to be something).

Recently I started a thread on an agnostic forum on this same topic. Glad to see someone here has similar ideas

 

[Godmachine]

But, isn’t that latter what I am doing? Let’s call Nothing(ness) ‘0’ for now:

0 does not equal God
Therefore God does not equal 0
Therefore God = some non-zero (non-nothing) entity
Therefore God exists

This seems to be logical, is it not?

How do you know god and nothing are not the same thing? The more you think about it, the more you might find that “nothing” fits all the criteria to match the definition of a “god”.

 

[Sair]

Here is a new proof for the existence of God (and, indeed, the existence of everything).

Let us consider ‘nothing’, (i.e. nothing-ness) the non-Ent. Clearly, no predicates may be positively attached to nothing, e.g. it is incorrect to say, “Nothing(ness) is green”, “Nothing(ness) is a cloud/human/dog (i.e. anything)”

‘Nothing’ , is by definition, not ANYTHING.

Therefore any statement in the form: “Nothing is a …”, is always and necessarily false, since nothing is nothing, and nothing but nothing! Nothing cannot be anything at all.

If “Nothing is a X” is, then, always false, it follows that “something is a X” must always be true.

If the statement “Nothing is a God” is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, “Something is (a) God”, i.e. that God exists.

If this argument is valid (and sound), it would seem to establish also that everything (e.g. unicorns) exist, as Parmenides said “Everything exists”.

Can anyone precisely the logical invalidity, or false premise, here (apart from the obvious objection raised above, or intuitive unease)?

Good luck!

Nothing, according to the philosophers, is a state of absolute nonexistence. No matter, no energy, no spirit - nothing. Creation from nothing as a proof of God (or gods, or great spirits, or any creative entity one chooses) is hard to support, since if God exists, the philosophers’ nothing does not obtain.

What I find myself wondering is why it is invariably supposed, by philosophers and religious believers in particular, that nothing - a condition of absolute nonexistence - is somehow a necessary precursor to the existence of the universe, of the earth, of plants, of animals - basically everything that we might perceive as extant. Why is nothing considered to be a genuine contender for an alternative to the diversity of extant forms now present in the universe? Is it even possible for a state of nothingness to obtain? To that question, I’ve not yet seen a satisfactory answer. Maybe something - be it ever so simple - has always existed. If it is possible for a personal, creative, perceptive god to exist eternally, it is surely possible for much simpler conditions to exist eternally.

 

[Sair]

How do you know god and nothing are not the same thing? The more you think about it, the more you might find that “nothing” fits all the criteria to match the definition of a “god”.

Hard to define, hard to imagine, impossible to discern? Yes, you may have hit on something here…

 

[tonyrey]

Hard to define, hard to imagine, impossible to discern? Yes, you may have hit on something here…

Your mind: hard to define, hard to imagine, impossible to discern? Yes, you may have hit on something here… Perhaps you are just a mindless body.

There’s no guarantee that everyone has a mind…

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing, according to the philosophers, is a state of absolute nonexistence.

? Surely a "state refers to something.

No matter, no energy, no spirit - nothing. Creation from nothing as a proof of God (or gods, or great spirits, or any creative entity one chooses) is hard to support, since if God exists, the philosophers’ nothing does not obtain.

“nothing” is a word which presupposes the **absence **of something. It certainly presupposes at least one mind which understands what the word signifies.

What I find myself wondering is why it is invariably supposed, by philosophers and religious believers in particular, that nothing - a condition of absolute nonexistence - is somehow a necessary precursor to the existence of the universe, of the earth, of plants, of animals - basically everything that we might perceive as extant.

“nothing” is not a condition of anything. It is a negation which has no effect on reality.

Why is nothing considered to be a genuine contender for an alternative to the diversity of extant forms now present in the universe? Is it even possible for a state of nothingness to obtain?

No!

To that question, I’ve not yet seen a satisfactory answer. Maybe something - be it ever so simple - has always existed.

As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing.

If it is possible for a pers:thumbsupnal, creative, perceptive god to exist eternally, it is surely possible for much simpler conditions to exist eternally.

There is nothing simpler than One Being.

 

[tonyrey]

How do you know god and nothing are not the same thing? The more you think about it, the more you might find that “nothing” fits all the criteria to match the definition of a “god”.

A gratuitous assertion!

 

[tonyrey]

Nothingness, I think is best defined as the essence or quality of nothing (which would have to be something).

Nothingness has no “essence” - whatever that may be.

“Nothingness is the quality of nothing” is a reification which doesn’t correspond to reality.

“nothingness” is nonsense! It is merely a mythical mental construct which implies that “nothing” is a state whereas it is the absolute absence of everything and everyone.

As I pointed out in another post, “nothing” is a word which presupposes the **absence **of something. It certainly presupposes at least one mind which understands what the word signifies!

 

[empther]

From the first post in this thread

Here is a new proof for the existence of God (and, indeed, the existence of everything).

Well, this is exciting. I can’t wait to hear it.

If the statement “Nothing is a God” is false (since nothing cannot be a God, or it would not be nothing), it then follows that, “Something is (a) God”, i.e. that God exists.

This is not a proof of God. “Something” may not be God.

The best proof of God is that there cannot be only things that exist in time because there cannot be an infinite past.
There has to be an eternal being who started it all.

 

[Godmachine]

A gratuitous assertion!

I asserted nothing (no pun intended)