"Nothingess" argument. Is this proof valid?

[Godmachine]

The best proof of God is that there cannot be only things that exist in time because there cannot be an infinite past.

If this is true how is it proof of a god?

There has to be an eternal being who started it all.

Why?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

I think this is actually an example of an equivocation fallacy called “reification”

Definition:

“To reify is to treat as a thing. To describe philosophers as reifying is usually to charge that they are misled by verbal form into thinking simply because some noun has a use, there must be something to which it refers. Thus Platonists are charged with reifying numbers or universals, and people are supposed to have improperly reified great varieties of things, including sets, infinite collections, finite things, sensations, physical objects, the future, the past, the possible, or the will of the people. The charge is itself not entirely transparent, and the fault these philosophies commit may more helpfully be put as treating things of one type as if they were things of another. See also ontology, realism/anti-realism.”

 

[tgrath]

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?

The problem is that you could substitute any word at all for God, in that statement.

 

[tonyrey]

I asserted nothing (no pun intended)

If “The more you think about it, the more you might find that “nothing” fits all the criteria to match the definition of a ‘god’” is nothing then it means nothing.

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

Yes, I understand the objection. It seems that there is a distinction between “nothing” and “no thing”.

Can a distinction be sustained between (a) non-existence ‘thing’ and the absence of existent things?

 

[Qoeleth]

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”.

This is actually an expression which appears from time to time among the more apophatic mystics.

 

[tonyrey]

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!

Nothing “signifies nothing” in every sense of the phrase unless it is qualified, e.g. “There is nothing to eat” or “Nothing we have written makes sense”!

 

[thewanderer]

I think this is actually an example of an equivocation fallacy called “reification”

Definition:

“To reify is to treat as a thing. To describe philosophers as reifying is usually to charge that they are misled by verbal form into thinking simply because some noun has a use, there must be something to which it refers. Thus Platonists are charged with reifying numbers or universals, and people are supposed to have improperly reified great varieties of things, including sets, infinite collections, finite things, sensations, physical objects, the future, the past, the possible, or the will of the people. The charge is itself not entirely transparent, and the fault these philosophies commit may more helpfully be put as treating things of one type as if they were things of another. See also ontology, realism/anti-realism.”

Thank you for this, it is very interesting. I think I see what you are saying, but I’m pretty sure the problem does not go all the way back to the ontological level. It is possible that there is also a problem on that level, but even before that on the level of concepts. I think what you posted here helped me to clarify what I am trying to say. Every word has a meaning, in arguing logically one must always use a word to mean the same thing within an argument or the conclusion will be wrong. In the OP’s problem he used nothing to mean two different things. In the firsst case it refered to the concept of nothingness, which, of course, does not have an ontological existance, but which is really one concept. In the second case, the word nothing, because of the particular sentance it is in and the way english works, no longer refers to some one concept, nothingness, but instead works with other words in the sentance to express something. Does that make any sense?

Yes, I understand the objection. It seems that there is a distinction between “nothing” and “no thing”.

Can a distinction be sustained between (a) non-existence ‘thing’ and the absence of existent things?

you are lining up nothing with non-existence and ‘no thing’ with the absence of existent things I presume?

The problem is that the meaning of nothing in your second sentance does not line up directly with the concept of ‘no thing’. In English the phrase ‘nothing is’ when nothing is not speaking of nothingness, simply means ‘There is no thing that is’. Just because the word ‘nothing’ in the second sentance appears to be an independant noun, representing one concept, it is not in fact doing so, it is working with the verb ‘to be’ in such a way that the sentance takes on a different meaning. Read ThinkingSapiens response above to see if it helps to clarify this, only instead of ontological realities think of it with respect to concepts, and see if that helps.

 

[empther]

You can tell you’re close to the truth when the A-team attacks you without giving any substantial arguments against you.

Godmachine’s post 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The best proof of God is that there cannot be only things that exist in time because there cannot be an infinite past.

If this is true how is it proof of a god?

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
There has to be an eternal being who started it all.

Why?

Everything we observe must be explained and only God can explain what we observe.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

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!

Consider the sets X and Y. X is an empty set, representing nothing. Y is the set of gods. If no gods exist then X = Y, or in other words, both sets are empty. If at least one God existed, then X =/= Y and there exists an element not in X that is in Y.

So your statement is subtly wrong for this reason: When you say “nothing is God” it is not automatically false. If God is nothing (i.e. doesn’t exist), then you are saying that “Nothing is nothing” which is actually true. We can expose the flaw in your logic this way:

1. Nothing is “an object which does not exist”
2. (1) is false because nothing cannot be anything
3. Not nothing (i.e. something) is “an object which does not exist”
4. “An object which does not exist” exists

We have therefore reached a logical contradiction.

 

[Godmachine]

You can tell you’re close to the truth when the A-team attacks you without giving any substantial arguments against you.

Godmachine’s post 21

Everything we observe must be explained and only God can explain what we observe.

Speaking of insubstantial arguments…

A gratuitous assertion.

 

[Godmachine]

If “The more you think about it, the more you might find that “nothing” fits all the criteria to match the definition of a ‘god’” is nothing then it means nothing.

My statement was not an assertion. It was a personal opinion and stated as such. Your disagreement with my opinion does not make what I said a “gratuitous assertion”. You are free to dismiss it as such if you are so inclined but that does not invalidate what I said. It is still my opinion. You have not changed my mind in the least.

 

[Godmachine]

You can tell you’re close to the truth when the A-team attacks you without giving any substantial arguments against you.

Empther,
I did not attack you. I asked a couple simple questions that should have been easy enough to answer if you really believed what you said.

The best proof of God is that there cannot be only things that exist in time because there cannot be an infinite past.

I can accept that this is your opinion and I can accept that you believe it. You seem to be suggesting here (correct me if I am wrong) that something can exist outside the boundaries of time (space as well?) and that there cannot be an infinite past. If I grant that this statement is true, how would this prove the existence of a god?

Not an attack, just a question.

You also stated:

There has to be an eternal being who started it all.

My question: Why?
Not an attack, just a question.

Everything we observe must be explained…

We do our best but quite often the best we can do is an educated guess.

…and only God can explain what we observe.

Again, I can accept that this is your opinion and I accept that you believe it. But just because we do not have a scientific explanation for an observed phenomenon does not mean that one does not exist. And it certainly does not mean that “God” is the only alternative.

 

[tonyrey]

My statement was not an assertion. It was a personal opinion and stated as such.

A statement of a personal opinion is an assertion!

assertion - a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)

• TheFreeDictionary

Your disagreement with my opinion does not make what I said a “gratuitous assertion”.

Whether I disagree or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is an assertion.

You are free to dismiss it as such if you are so inclined but that does not invalidate what I said. It is still my opinion. You have not changed my mind in the least.

You are obviously free to be reasonable or unreasonable!

“You have not changed my mind in the least” is further evidence that your assertion is emphatic.

 

[Godmachine]

A statement of a personal opinion is an assertion!

It is only an assertion if it is stated as a fact. If that is how you interpreted what I said, that is not the way it was meant.

 

[Sair]

? Surely a "state refers to something.

Reification aside, there are few options language offers for describing nonexistence.

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

You only say that because we have minds that understand the signification (at least superficially) and a world of physical forms to provide the potential absence. It’s easy to say, “There’s nothing in the fridge” if we’re referring to an absence of food or drink in a place where such things are customarily kept - but this is hardly the same as saying that nonexistence obtains in the fridge. Nonexistence does not, indeed cannot, imply anything at all.

As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing.

It’s interesting, however, that a rather scathing review was written of Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe From Nothing (which I am currently reading) which, in effect, accused him of defining ‘nothing’ out of existence, so to speak! Because the physicists’ “nothing” is essentially a quantum vacuum, in which particles pop in and out of existence, the reviewer was quite unsatisfied with Krauss’s explanation, because he still hadn’t elucidated how it was possible for a universe to be created from the philosophers’ nothing - that is, total nonexistence (which, I intimated in my previous post, must exclude gods, if it excludes any entity at all). I certainly don’t claim to know that it’s possible for total nonexistence to obtain - I don’t think it’s something we can comprehend, and it’s certainly impossible to think of nothing. Yet it appears that there are still those who will not be satisfied unless there’s some explanation for how existence can come from nonexistence. For this, some people claim gods must exist, but gods are hardly nonexistence (if they do, indeed, exist).

There is nothing simpler than One Being.

I would argue for something simpler still - any being that can think and create and have emotions is far more complex than an entity that has no capacity to do these things.

 

[tonyrey]

Reification aside, there are few options language offers for describing nonexistence.

That’s because there is nothing to describe!

You only say that because we have minds that understand the signification (at least superficially) and a world of physical forms to provide the potential absence. It’s easy to say, “There’s nothing in the fridge” if we’re referring to an absence of food or drink in a place where such things are customarily kept - but this is hardly the same as saying that nonexistence obtains in the fridge. Nonexistence does not, indeed cannot, imply anything at all.

Nonexistence by itself implies nothing but awareness of nonexistence implies something!

It’s interesting, however, that a rather scathing review was written of Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe From Nothing (which I am currently reading) which, in effect, accused him of defining ‘nothing’ out of existence, so to speak! Because the physicists’ “nothing” is essentially a quantum vacuum, in which particles pop in and out of existence, the reviewer was quite unsatisfied with Krauss’s explanation, because he still hadn’t elucidated how it was possible for a universe to be created from the philosophers’ nothing - that is, total nonexistence (which, I intimated in my previous post, must exclude gods, if it excludes any entity at all). I certainly don’t claim to know that it’s possible for total nonexistence to obtain - I don’t think it’s something we can comprehend, and it’s certainly impossible to think of nothing. Yet it appears that there are still those who will not be satisfied unless there’s some explanation for how existence can come from nonexistence. For this, some people claim gods must exist, but gods are hardly nonexistence (if they do, indeed, exist).

No one - except Krauss and others of his ilk - believes existence comes from nonexistence. We believe **physical **existence is not eternal but has been created.

I would argue for something simpler still - any being that can think and create and have emotions is far more complex than an entity that has no capacity to do these things.

It is simplistic to put all one’s eggs in the basket composed of purposeless articles…

 

[Sair]

That’s because there is nothing to describe!

Quite so, hence the inappropriateness of our familiar symbols, which all refer to something.

Nonexistence by itself implies nothing but awareness of nonexistence implies something!

How can we be aware of nonexistence?

No one - except Krauss and others of his ilk - believes existence comes from nonexistence. We believe **physical **existence is not eternal but has been created.

But that’s the whole point - Krauss doesn’t believe existence comes from nonexistence, but from a - probably - eternal state of quantum fluctuation. For this reason, the reviewer I mentioned ripped into him for ignoring the “true” nothing - moving the goalposts, so to speak. Whatever “nonphysical existence” entails has yet to be defined.

It is simplistic to put all one’s eggs in the basket composed of purposeless articles…

More simplistic than to put them in a bubble composed of baseless fantasies? But it seems to me to be at least equally naive to suppose one already knows all the capacities and potentials of physical existence…

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

I don’t think any theist would argue that non-being existed before the universe because every theist (if he is actually a theist) would argue that God (in who is all being) exists always and thus also before the universe. The presupposition of the theist is that being, as we know it, was created by transcendant being, that we do not know, and so creation was not caused by nothing only that there was not a preexistent being for creation as we now know it.

God Bless

 

[empther]

Interesting that people throw in all kinds of verbiage that go nowhere.
while ignoring something that says it all,
such as the following…

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.

What part of these 34 words is so difficult to understand?