"Nothingess" argument. Is this proof valid?

[TheTrueCentrist]

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

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

Have you forgotten our long discussion in which you failed to give any reason for why a prime mover must be God, and not some other force or entity?

 

[empther]

( I knew it wouldn’t be long before A-team captain TrueCentrist showed up. It only took three minutes. Nothing else to do, TC? )

Friends,
do you see how deceptive the A-team is? :banghead:

Have you forgotten our long discussion in which you failed to give any reason for why a prime mover must be God, and not some other force or entity?

Not at all.

The A-team suggested “chance” caused the universe. I answered that there is no “chance” where there is nothing.

The A-team suggested a quantum effect caused the universe. I answered that there is no quantum effect where these is nothing.

The A-team suggested something less than God could create the universe. I answered that only an omnipotent being could create the universe out of nothing.

etc
etc
etc

All discussed before.
in many long discussions on many threads.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The A-team suggested “chance” caused the universe. I answered that there is no “chance” where there is nothing.

The A-team suggested a quantum effect caused the universe. I answered that there is no quantum effect where these is nothing.

The A-team suggested something less than God could create the universe. I answered that only an omnipotent being could create the universe out of nothing.

All discussed before.
in many long discussions on many threads.

You still haven’t fully understood the point. According to your reasoning (there is no “X” where there is nothing) then we can easily dismiss God as the prime mover because there is no God when there is nothing.

You will of course say “there was nothing but God!” which is obviously the same claim made in the counter-examples: “There was nothing but X.” In other words, you must supply a reason to explain why you can make this claim about God, but not about anything else. You will say something to the effect that “God is supernatural” but that is just a dodge. What you really are saying is simply that “God has a property which allows this to be possible.” But you have not explained why it is impossible for some other cause to have that same property.

Omnipotence isn’t required to make a universe out of nothing, only sufficient-potence.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s because there is nothing to describe!

Mathematical symbols refer to a particular situation not the whole of reality, e.g. there are 0 objects in this room. It doesn’t make sense to refer to reality + 0 or reality - 0!

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

How can we be aware of nonexistence?

In the same way that we’re aware of a square circle!By an invalid extrapolation from particular situations.

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.

The fluctuation of opinions on the subject reveals their insubstantial nature.

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.

To attempt to define nonphysical existence in terms of physical objects is absurd. What is your physical definition of a thought or decision?

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

More simplistic than to put them in a bubble composed of baseless fantasies?

If your mind is a baseless fantasy your statements are worthless…

But it seems to me to be at least equally naive to suppose one already knows all the capacities and potentials of physical existence…

It is the height of naiveté to suppose one already knows that purposeless (p)articles can in principle explain absolutely everything (including themselves of course…)

 

[Godmachine]

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

So your answer is to ignore the questions and keep repeating the same mantra over and over. I’ll just assume then that you cannot answer the questions.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m just curious… why has this thread turned into a discussion of whether or not God exists/arguing about past disagreements??? This thread is specifically asking if a particular proof is valid, and if not, why is it not. Please do not derail the thread.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I’m just curious… why has this thread turned into a discussion of whether or not God exists/arguing about past disagreements??? This thread is specifically asking if a particular proof is valid, and if not, why is it not. Please do not derail the thread.

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.

There have been no responses to my analysis, so it seemed the discussion was over.

 

[thewanderer]

There have been no responses to my analysis, so it seemed the discussion was over.

You could be right, but can any of us know for certain? If the OP still has questions he is going to find it difficult to come back and ask them if his thread has been completely derailed. You can always start a new thread and put a link to it in this one so that the discussion can continue without derailing this thread. It just seems like common courtesy to me.

 

[tonyrey]

There have been no responses to my analysis, so it seemed the discussion was over.

The word “nothing” refers to an illusion from which nothing can be deduced - except the existence of the person(s) deceived by the illusion (which is a far cry from God)!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The word “nothing” refers to an illusion from which nothing can be deduced - except the existence of the person(s) deceived by the illusion (which is a far cry from God)!

I would say this: If there were a state in which absolutely nothing existed, then nothing could come from that state. Something exists. Therefore, there is no state in which nothing exists.

This is the issue I have with people who say: “first there was nothing.” This is not the case. What they really mean is “First there was nothing but something (e.g. God)” which is not really nothing at all.

 

[tonyrey]

I would say this: If there were a state in which absolutely nothing existed, then nothing could come from that state. Something exists. Therefore, there is no state in which nothing exists.

I agree.

This is the issue I have with people who say: “first there was nothing.” This is not the case. What they really mean is “First there was nothing but something (e.g. God)” which is not really nothing at all.

God is not regarded as a thing in the same category as everything else!

“In Him we live, move and have our being”.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

God is not regarded as a thing in the same category as everything else!

“In Him we live, move and have our being”.

Why not? Is God something or nothing? He is something. Therefore in the beginning there was something: namely God.

Indeed, we could say the same thing about any potential prime mover. In the beginning there was only the prime mover, and nothing else.

 

[Qoeleth]

There have been no responses to my analysis, so it seemed the discussion was over.

That is a good response. But, one objection to your analysis. It seems to rely on defining God as “an object that doesn’t exist”. But this is not a necessary part of the definition of God.

I suppose my proof doesn’t really prove anything- without a decision whether “Nothing is God” is false or true.

Whether taken as true or false, it still remains ambiguous. If true, it could mean, “There is no object which belongs to the set ‘God’” OR, it could mean, “Non-existence possesses the Divine Attributes”.

But do these statement actually mean the same thing? If they did, it would mean atheists and the apophatic mystics are saying the same thing.

Maybe this undecidability is an inherent part of the argument. A text with ambiguity is richer and more, not less, meaningful. So the question remains:
Is that the statement “Nothing is God” true of false?

 

[empther]

( I just got back from being away from my computer all day. Unlike TrueCentrist who seems to be on this website 24/7, I have things to do. That’s why it sometimes seems like I don’t answer questions. )

From TrueCentrist’s post 43

Omnipotence isn’t required to make a universe out of nothing, only sufficient-potence.

Ah, yes. The sufficient-potency argument again. We’ve been over that before.

Something that has sufficient-potency, but not omnipotence, is limited in some way. It is not infinite. Even TrueCentrist will have to admit that.

Anything that is limited in some way is limited BY SOMETHING.

By what? It doesn’t matter. The fact that it is limited in some way means it does not have that total command of, or control of, existence. It is not it’s own existence. It is not existence. It’s essence is not existence. Therefore, it cannot create something where there was nothing.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That is a good response. But, one objection to your analysis. It seems to rely on defining God as “an object that doesn’t exist”. But this is not a necessary part of the definition of God.

I suppose my proof doesn’t really prove anything- without a decision whether “Nothing is God” is false or true.

Whether taken as true or false, it still remains ambiguous. If true, it could mean, “There is no object which belongs to the set ‘God’” OR, it could mean, “Non-existence possesses the Divine Attributes”.

But do these statement actually mean the same thing? If they did, it would mean atheists and the apophatic mystics are saying the same thing.

Maybe this undecidability is an inherent part of the argument. A text with ambiguity is richer and more, not less, meaningful. So the question remains:
Is that the statement “Nothing is God” true of false?

Yes. Basically your proof tells us: if God exists, then God exists.

However there is one more subtlety here. Consider the general form:

1. Nothing is X
2. (1) is false because nothing cannot be anything
3. Something is X
4. X exists

I think there is a bit of a jump from 3 to 4. We could agree that faeries are something. We could also agree that they do not exist. In other words, the set of “somethings” is not restricted to the set of things that exist. Therefore, all things that exist are “something” but not all “somethings” exist.

We can go farther and ask what exactly is the set of “somethings” and I would say that they are the set of things for which we have necessary and sufficient conditions. So the argument becomes:

1. Nothing has the necessary and sufficient conditions to be X
2. (1) is false because nothing cannot have the necessary and sufficient conditions to be anything but nothing
3. X has necessary and sufficient conditions
4. X exists

Here we can see the flaw more clearly.

 

[Qoeleth]

Yes. Basically your proof tells us: if God exists, then God exists.

However there is one more subtlety here. Consider the general form:

1. Nothing is X
2. (1) is false because nothing cannot be anything
3. Something is X
4. X exists

I think there is a bit of a jump from 3 to 4. We could agree that faeries are something. We could also agree that they do not exist. In other words, the set of “somethings” is not restricted to the set of things that exist. Therefore, all things that exist are “something” but not all “somethings” exist.

We can go farther and ask what exactly is the set of “somethings” and I would say that they are the set of things for which we have necessary and sufficient conditions. So the argument becomes:

1. Nothing has the necessary and sufficient conditions to be X
2. (1) is false because nothing cannot have the necessary and sufficient conditions to be anything but nothing
3. X has necessary and sufficient conditions
4. X exists

Here we can see the flaw more clearly.

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

Both Chuang Tzu and Parmenides maintain that ‘everything exists’. Perhaps the ancient sages are right. If the universe (i.e. the set of existing things) is infinite, then there must be nothing excluded from the set (otherwise, it would have finitude, leaving out those things excluded from it).

Even if the set of existing things (the Universe) is not infinite, it can exclude nothing. Otherwise it would not be ‘universal’, which, by definition, it is.

Ergo, everything is contained in the universal set of things, the Universe, which may also be defined as the set of existing things. So, everything exists.

 

[Sair]

I would say this: If there were a state in which absolutely nothing existed, then nothing could come from that state. Something exists. Therefore, there is no state in which nothing exists.

This is the issue I have with people who say: “first there was nothing.” This is not the case. What they really mean is “First there was nothing but something (e.g. God)” which is not really nothing at all.

Precisely the point I had intended to make, though you put it much better and more concisely!

 

[Sair]

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

Both Chuang Tzu and Parmenides maintain that ‘everything exists’. Perhaps the ancient sages are right. If the universe (i.e. the set of existing things) is infinite, then there must be nothing excluded from the set (otherwise, it would have finitude, leaving out those things excluded from it).

Even if the set of existing things (the Universe) is not infinite, it can exclude nothing. Otherwise it would not be ‘universal’, which, by definition, it is.

Ergo, everything is contained in the universal set of things, the Universe, which may also be defined as the set of existing things. So, everything exists.

This, again, may be a product of the nature and limits of our language. There is, of course, a distinction to be drawn between that which exists in an external, objective - dare I say, material - sense and that which exists as an idea encapsulated in words and images. It’s perfectly valid to say that the idea of fairies exists, and demonstrably so. It’s quite another matter to claim that they exist apart from our collective imagination, even given the notorious difficulty of proving nonexistence.

I guess the obvious snag here is that because we have in our language a term for the concept of nonexistence (however imperfectly we comprehend nonexistence) it has a tendency to take on the character of something, if only as an idea. Hence, perhaps, the tendency to suppose that “nothing” is possible in fact as it is - sort of - possible in imagination.

 

[tonyrey]

*God is not regarded as a thing in the same category as everything else!

The Supreme Being is not “something” but the Source of everyone and.everything.

Indeed, we could say the same thing about any potential prime mover. In the beginning there was only the prime mover, and nothing else

God is not merely the Prime Mover but the Creator and Sustainer.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The Supreme Being is not “something” but the Source of everyone and.everything.

God is not merely the Prime Mover but the Creator and Sustainer.

Is the source of everyone and everything something or nothing?

Is the creator and “sustainer” something or nothing?