"Nothingess" argument. Is this proof valid?

[TheTrueCentrist]

True. But the implication remains- everything which is not nothing is something, and therefore exists. Does this mean fairies exist? Perhaps.

No, I have explained that the set of something contains both things that exist and things that do not exist. Therefore belonging to the set of somethings is not sufficient to prove something exists.

You are essentially asserting that all “somethings” exist, and therefore since everything is a something, everything exists.

 

[slotty]

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.

Good luck!

God is a something ≠ God exists

Your construct allows for the existence of God but does not actually confirm the existence.

God is a something actually says God is not defined by the characteristics of nothing. Because of this fact God is a something which means God could exist.

In the same way a fairy could exist because a fairy is not defined by the characteristics of nothing

 

[tonyrey]

Is the source of everyone and everything something or nothing?

Is the creator and “sustainer” something or nothing?

Those questions imply that “He Who Is” is in the same category as everything else - which is clearly absurd.

 

[tonyrey]

In the beginning there was only the prime mover, and nothing else.

It doesn’t make sense to apply “In the beginning” to the Supreme Being **who transcends time and space **- like truth, goodness, freedom and love.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Those questions imply that “He Who Is” is in the same category as everything else - which is clearly absurd.

It doesn’t make sense to apply “In the beginning” to the Supreme Being **who transcends time and space **- like truth, goodness, freedom and love.

Essentially what you are saying is that if there is ever some logic which casts doubt on your conception of God, you will play the “God is special, logic does not apply” card. There is therefore no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[empther]

The A-team again: :hey_bud:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Those questions imply that “He Who Is” is in the same category as everything else - which is clearly absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*It doesn’t make sense to apply “In the beginning” to the Supreme Being **who transcends time and space ***- like truth, goodness, freedom and love.

Essentially what you are saying is that if there is ever some logic which casts doubt on your conception of God, you will play the “God is special, logic does not apply” card. There is therefore no point in continuing this discussion.

Nonsense. That’s not what tonyrey is saying at all.
tonyrey gave some very pertinent and substantial points:

• the concept of the Judeo-Christian God is indeed very different from “chance” or “quantum effect” or “sufficient-potency” or any other hokey junk the A-team proposes as the Prime Mover.
• the concept of the Judeo-Christian God requires that he transcend time and space and all the rest.

It’s the A-team that will use any kind of illogical gratuitous important-point-ignoring junk to try to dissuade believers. And is this A-team effort which is pointless and not worth persuing.

Are you getting frustrated with your feeble attempts, A-team?

---

empther, the A-team’s worst nightmare

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The A-team again: :hey_bud:

Nonsense. That’s not what tonyrey is saying at all.
tonyrey gave some very pertinent and substantial points:

• the concept of the Judeo-Christian God is indeed very different from “chance” or “quantum effect” or “sufficient-potency” or any other hokey junk the A-team proposes as the Prime Mover.
• the concept of the Judeo-Christian God requires that he transcend time and space and all the rest.

It’s the A-team that will use any kind of illogical gratuitous important-point-ignoring junk to try to dissuade believers. And is this A-team effort which is pointless and not worth persuing.

Are you getting frustrated with your feeble attempts, A-team?

---

empther, the A-team’s worst nightmare

Then perhaps you will answer my question: is God something or nothing?

 

[Qoeleth]

Then perhaps you will answer my question: is God something or nothing?

Very good question. I would say, at the risk of both annoying the atheists and the theists, that God is beyond all predicates, and that the category of something and nothing do not apply. Neither do any other categories.

To provide a less-than-helpful analogy, to ask if God is something or nothing is like asking if the number seven is hot or cold.

What is your own answer, True Centrist?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Very good question. I would say, at the risk of both annoying the atheists and the theists, that God is beyond all predicates, and that the category of something and nothing do not apply. Neither do any other categories.

To provide a less-than-helpful analogy, to ask if God is something or nothing is like asking if the number seven is hot or cold.

What is your own answer, True Centrist?

Of course God is something.

If we claim that God is neither something nor nothing, then the original proof fails again. If there is a third category, then saying that “not nothing” is X does not mean that “something” is X. We could not immediately decide whether X is something or this 3rd thing.

 

[empther]

More A-team blabber: :hey_bud:

If we claim that God is neither something nor nothing, then the original proof fails again. If there is a third category, then saying that “not nothing” is X does not mean that “something” is X. We could not immediately decide whether X is something or this 3rd thing.

Tha A-team tries to confuse you and make themselves look intellectual by writing meaningless gibberish,

and this nonsense is about as meaningless as it gets. :whackadoo: :takeoff:

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

More A-team blabber: :hey_bud:


Tha A-team tries to confuse you and make themselves look intellectual by writing meaningless gibberish,

and this nonsense is about as meaningless as it gets. :whackadoo: :takeoff:

No, it is *very *basic logic. If there are three possibilities that collectively exhaust a set (say A, B, and C) then

not A implies B or C
However the original proof requires
not A implies B

 

[thewanderer]

More A-team blabber: :hey_bud:



Tha A-team tries to confuse you and make themselves look intellectual by writing meaningless gibberish,

and this nonsense is about as meaningless as it gets. :whackadoo: :takeoff:

Actually, I have to agree with TheTrueCentrist here. What he said here makes perfect sense.

 

[empther]

Actually, I have to agree with TheTrueCentrist here. What he said here makes perfect sense.

Then you can explain it?

 

[thewanderer]

Then you can explain it?

Well, I can try.

Basically, it comes down to saying there are two different categories of being, “something” and “this other category”. Because of the nothing/something dichotomy that was presented “nothing” is, in this case, the negation of the first category of being “something”, however it has no necessary relation to “this other category”. In other words, we must note that there is a different negation of this second category of being. So when one claims that “nothing” doesn’t apply to a particular idea, there are still three options left. Either “something” applies, “this other category” applies, or “the negation of this other category” applies. The first two options would show its existance, but the third option leaves open the possibility that it doesn’t exist. If you want to make this argument work you would have to find a negation that applies to both categories and then prove that that negation does not apply.

lets look at it like this.
A and B are two different categories of being.
-A and -B are the negations of said categories respectively
We know that one of these labels must apply to every concept.
We discover that -A does not apply.
That leaves either, A, B, or -B
-B, being a negation of being or existance.
Which means that the ‘proof’ has not yet shown the concept to exist.

 

[empther]

Basically, it comes down to saying there are two different categories of being, “something” and “this other category”. Because of the nothing/something dichotomy that was presented “nothing” is, in this case, the negation of the first category of being “something”, however it has no necessary relation to “this other category”. In other words, we must note that there is a different negation of this second category of being. So when one claims that “nothing” doesn’t apply to a particular idea, there are still three options left. Either “something” applies, “this other category” applies, or “the negation of this other category” applies. The first two options would show its existance, but the third option leaves open the possibility that it doesn’t exist. If you want to make this argument work you would have to find a negation that applies to both categories and then prove that that negation does not apply.

lets look at it like this.
A and B are two different categories of being.
-A and -B are the negations of said categories respectively
We know that one of these labels must apply to every concept.
We discover that -A does not apply.
That leaves either, A, B, or -B
-B, being a negation of being or existance.
Which means that the ‘proof’ has not yet shown the concept to exist.

I see.

Let’s see how far we can get into this quote before we find an error.

Basically, it comes down to saying there are two different categories of being, “something” and “this other category”.

Stop right there.

So there is one catrgory called “something” that may or may not exist,
but also a “this other category” to which negation does not appy?

This is nonsense. You find this makes perfect sense?

 

[thewanderer]

I see.

Let’s see how far we can get into this quote before we find an error.

Stop right there.

So there is one catrgory called “something” that may or may not exist,
but also a “this other category” to which negation does not appy?

This is nonsense. You find this makes perfect sense?

Ok, so you didn’t bother to try and understand what I waas saying and instead got caught up in the particular language I used. I see you care very much about having an honest discussion rather than just trying to belittle those you don’t agree with.

The supposition which was brought up is that there are 2 different categories of being. “Something” is the name given to anything that belongs to the first category of being. The second category remained unnamed so I just called it the other category. With this supposition, which I did not come up with but accepted from others for the sake of expanding upon it and seeing what follows from it, there are 2 waays that an idea can be said to actually exist. Either it belongs to the first category and can be called “something” or it belongs to the other and can be said to exist as a member of the other category of being.

Now, the second supposition which I was taking from what others on this thread were saying is that “nothing” is the negation of “something”. However, when you introduce a new category of being it does not necessarily follow that the negation of one category of being “something” is also the negation of the other category of being. Which is where my point came in. If you show that by the word “nothing” yoou don’t actually mean the negation of “something” but the negation of belonging to any category of being, than proving that that negation is false will prove that such a concept must belong to one of the categories of being. But if you are only using the negation of one of the categories of being it does not prove that the concept exists.

If this is still unclear I can try to clarify further, but please actually try to understand what I am saying rather than just attacking what you think I said.

 

[empther]

In answer to a question from godmachine who asked who I’m referring to by “A-team”.

GM

The “A-team” refers to atheists who come on this website and argue against anything believers say using any argument no matter how illogical and no matter how much they ignore important points that believers have already raised,

with the intention of casting doubt on believers’s beliefs.

It does not refer to atheists or agnostics who ask honest questions. Nor does it refer to other religions or pagans. They do not come here to destroy our faith, anymore than we attack their beliefs.

Norm

 

[empther]

thewanderer,

You fail to explain how there can be two categories of being.

You and others seem to say there is a “something” category in which something may or may not exist,
but also an “other category” in which there is only the choice to exist.

While I am the first to say God’s existence is necessary and have said so many times,
this does make God an “other category” because there is and only can be one God. A category is plural. Furthermore, since God is eternal rather than a being in time, to say he exists or doesn’t exist must have different meaning than the catefory in which we live. Existence implies duration in time, but God does not indure in time. He is otherside time. God’s mode of existence is very different from ours, as I’ve said before.

If you want to drop this “other category” thing and say God is the necessary being, I’ll carry your flag.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer,

You fail to explain how there can be two categories of being.

You and others seem to say there is a “something” category in which something may or may not exist,
but also an “other category” in which there is only the choice to exist.

While I am the first to say God’s existence is necessary and have said so many times,
this does make God an “other category” because there is and only can be one God. A category is plural. Furthermore, since God is eternal rather than a being in time, to say he exists or doesn’t exist must have different meaning than the catefory in which we live. Existence implies duration in time, but God does not indure in time. He is otherside time. God’s mode of existence is very different from ours, as I’ve said before.

If you want to drop this “other category” thing and say God is the necessary being, I’ll carry your flag.

I guess I didn’t make myself clear enough. I am not claiming that these suppositions are true. I am assuming them for the sake of argument to show what follows from accepting such propositions. Also… I’m really not sure where you got the idea that the assumptions I am making for the point of this particular argument mean that the second category doesn’t have a negation… the whole point of my argument was that it seemed as though people weren’t taking it into account. I was just trying to help clarify one small claim, not try to get into the whole argument that was going on before that. Its possible that I did not correctly understand the claims that were being made, and gotten myself in deeper than I can really afford at present. Also, to clarify, I am using “exist” in a looser sense than you. I am not restricting it to an existance in time.

 

[empther]

Wanderer,

I don’t recall anybody from Aristotle onward talking about there being more than one category of existence.

I suspect that it’s because there is no such thing, and maybe its introduction in this thread was a waste of time.

On to other things.