The Impossibility Of Absolutely-Nothing And the Necessity Of A Fundamental Unchanging Act Of Reality

[IWantGod]

1. Absolutely-nothing is impossible because it is meaningless. Nothing refers to the possibility of some thing that is absent from reality. There is no possibility in absolutely-nothing since it is by the very nature of it’s meaning the absolute absence of everything including possibilities; for it is nothing at all. Since there are possibilities it cannot be true that there was ever such a thing as absolutely-nothing, or that there could be such a thing in principle, because existence is fundamental to all possibilities.
2. Absolutely-nothing is impossible because there are truths that are in principle always true and cannot cease to be true. There is no principle truth in absolutely-nothing thus absolutely nothing cannot ever be true. 2+2 = 4 is always true or is one such example. If there is even only one such example of what i would call an “eternal-truth”, it follows necessarily that absolutely-nothing is impossible.
3. If there were absolutely-nothing it would be true that there was absolutely nothing and at the same time there would be no truth at all (since it is nothing). Since this would be an obvious contradiction, it follows that absolutely-nothing is impossible because it is meaningless. It cannot have a truth value.
4. It cannot be true that there are only contingent realities (beings that do not necessarily exist, or are dependent for their existence on other beings), because that would mean that absolutely nothing is a possibility. But since out of absolutely-nothing comes nothing, it follows true that there is no reason for any contingent being to exist, and thus there should be absolutely-nothing. But something exists, and so it is true that absolutely-nothing is impossible.
5. Since argument 1 following through to argument 4 is true (even if only 1 of those arguments are true) it follows necessarily that there is a necessary fundamental act of existence that cannot cease to exist. We know this to be true because absolutely-nothing is impossible and meaningless.
6. Because premise 5 is true, it follows that necessary reality cannot change, because the nature of what it is including the very act of it’s existence is always true and cannot cease to be true. It’s act of existence cannot be potentially something else because what it is to it’s core is necessarily real. Therefore it cannot be said that it is changing or that it is made up of potential parts, because that would contradict the existential necessity of it’s nature.

To put it simply; a necessary act of reality (a reality that cannot cease to be in principle) is by definition not comprised of potentially real parts.

Conclusion: A fundamental absolutely necessary unchanging act of reality exists.

 

[STT]

Can you imagine nothing? I can. It is the state that there no thing exists. It is therefore logically possible.

 

[IWantGod]

It is the state that there no thing exists

A “state” is not nothing. The word nothing doesn’t apply to anything accept as a reference to a possible thing that does not exist in reality. It is a negation of possibility, not the positive presence of a thing or state. It is no-thing, as in - no thing that can be said to be real in any way. For example, saying there is nothing in the room, refers to all the possible things that could be in the room, but are not. But it cannot be true that there is an object which can be described as a no-thing in the room; there is not a nothing in the room. The word, as it stands by itself and not in reference to anything, is meaningless.The word does not apply to anything at all. It stands to reason that it doesn’t apply to possibly real things or states or even truth itself. You cannot imagine a lack of reality ( accept as a statement about what is lacking in an actual reality ) anymore than you can imagine a square-circle.

 

[STT]

A “state” is not nothing. The word nothing doesn’t apply to anything accept as a reference to a possible thing that does not exist in reality . It is a negation of possibility, not the positive presence of a thing or state. It is no- thing , as in - nothing that can be said to be real in any way. For example, saying there is nothing in the room, refers to all the possible things that could be in the room, but are not . But it cannot be true that there is an object which can be described as a no-thing in the room; there is not a nothing in the room. It is meaningless. Beyond that, the word does not apply to anything at all. It stands to reason that it doesn’t apply to possibly real things or states or even truth itself. You cannot imagine a lack of reality ( accept as a reference to possible realities ) anymore than you can imagine a square-circle.

A state is a condition. Condition is not a thing.

 

[IWantGod]

Condition

The concept of a condition is meaningless accept as a reference to an actually real state of being. A no-thing is not a condition of some thing accept as it relates to a negation in some being in comparison to another being. Realities have conditions. Without reality it’s meaningless.

 

[Wm777]

God created the world from nothing. Ergo, nothing is totally possible.

For God all things are possible. But for man only some things are possible; and of those things which are impossible for man, it is only because nothing exists for man within those realms of possibilities.

Don’t quit your day job.

 

[IWantGod]

Don’t quit your day job.

It is possible for something that is unnecessary to cease to be a being. But it does not follow that nothing can be a possible state of being. It’s self contradictory. The universe was no-thing only in comparison to that which is something or God; but there is no such thing as a “nothing”. And absolutely-nothing leads to a contradiction since you are no-longer talking about a negation of possible objects, but instead an object.

A “state” is not nothing. The word nothing doesn’t apply to anything accept as a reference to a possible thing that does not exist in reality . It is a negation of possibility, not the positive presence of a thing or state. It is no- thing , as in - no thing that can be said to be real in any way. For example, saying there is nothing in the room, refers to all the possible things that could be in the room, but are not . But it cannot be true that there is an object which can be described as a no-thing in the room; there is not a nothing in the room. The word, as it stands by itself and not in reference to anything, is meaningless.The word does not apply to anything at all. It stands to reason that it doesn’t apply to possibly real things or states or even truth itself. You cannot imagine a lack of reality (accept as a statement about what is lacking in an actual reality) anymore than you can imagine a square-circle.

Let me know if you have any difficulty understanding.

For God all things are possible.

If absolutely-nothing is a possibility then there is no such thing as God. I think you should think about what you are saying before you criticise.

 

[Inquiry]

Absolutely-nothing is indescribable because no descriptions could attach (not even the name 'absolutely-nothing, really). Descriptions are, after all something. Given that statements like “There is no principle truth in absolutely-nothing” are descriptors, they cannot apply to absolutely-nothing.

In other words, this proof doesn’t work because you cannot actually describe absolutely-nothing and therefore cannot make logical claims about it. (Also my critique of your proof also doesn’t work because I too have to apply descriptors to absolutely-nothing, but let’s not look to hard at that )

To be fair, that’s a limitation of the language as much as a limitation of the concept.

 

[IWantGod]

In other words, this proof doesn’t work because you cannot actually describe absolutely-nothing

Absolutely nothing is the complete absence of any meaningful description of reality. It is no thing at all. And yes it is not a thing in and of it’s self. Thus i can say there is no truth in absolutely nothing, because it is not truth, it is not anything.

In other words if it were possible for there to be absolutely nothing it would mean that it is possible for there to be no truth at all; which is impossible since if there were absolutely nothing it would be true, which is a contradiction…

 

[IWantGod]

To be fair, that’s a limitation of the language as much as a limitation of the concept.

To be fair, the concept of nothing refers to a description of what could possibly be real (or even the impossible like a square-circle) but does not exist in actual reality. It is not a self-referential concept. As a reference to itself, it is meaningless.

You are thinking about the concept in the wrong way to begin with.

 

[Inquiry]

Precisely, and the statement “there is no truth in absolutely-nothing” is a meaningful description. It doesn’t apply.

 

[IWantGod]

Precisely, and the statement “there is no truth in absolutely-nothing” is a meaningful description. It doesn’t apply.

That’s right, it doesn’t apply to nothing, thus it cannot be true that there could be absolutely nothing, since if there were absolutely nothing it would be true which is a contradiction like a square-circle.

 

[Inquiry]

No, because the statements “there is truth in absolutely-nothing” and “there is no truth in absolutely-nothing” aren’t just false, they fail to apply at all. Stating a truth about absolutely-nothing does not create a contradiction because neither the truth you state nor the quality of having no truths actually apply to absolutely-nothing.

The point is that there are no contradictions in absolutely-nothing because there are no qualities of absolutely-nothing to contradict.

 

[fhansen]

It’s interesting that the word nothing is an abstract concept based on something. IOW the concept of nothing has no reality of its own unless something exists.

 

[IWantGod]

No, because the statements “there is truth in absolutely-nothing” and “there is no truth in absolutely-nothing” aren’t just false, they fail to apply at all.

That’s wrong, i am simply saying that the principle rule of truth doesn’t apply to absolutely nothing because it is the absolute absence of truth. In other-words the concept of absolutely nothing is meaningless, just like a square-circle is. The word nothing is not self-referential in the first place and so the error is to treat it like is. To go from nothing as a referent to a possible thing that does not exist, to nothing as a self-referent is where the error lies. Reason cannot be applied to it. It is not an idea that could be possibly true, there for it is illogical to claim it to be a possibility or to think it could possibly occur in just the same way that it is illogical to think that a square-circle could possibly exist.

Thus my argument succeeds precisely because we are talking about a meaningless concept in the first place.

The point is that there are no contradictions in absolutely-nothing because there are no qualities of absolutely-nothing to contradict.

The bottom line is it cannot be true. If it were true it would be a contradiction, which i think is clear.

Even if you were correct, your argument only addresses argument number 3. They are all self contained arguments accept for 5 onward.

 

[STT]

It’s interesting that the word nothing is an abstract concept based on some thing.

Nothing is about an state of existence which is imaginable. My definition of nothing however depends on definition of something, something refers to something that we experience. We simply experience existence of ourselves. So we know what the existence mean. The opposite of existence is non-existence that we can imagine it. The OP owes to prove that nothing cannot be a state of affair.

IOW the concept of nothing has no reality of its own unless something exists.

No. Nothing could be real.

 

[Inquiry]

Just to make sure that you saw. I did point out that all my arguments have the same flaw I am saying your arguments have. You cannot say anything about nothing without ascribing either positive or negative qualities to it and your first four arguments all do. I have to do the same to argue with you.

The problem, I think, is in one of two places. It could be in the language itself. When we try to describe nothing, we aren’t really describing the absence of everything so much as we are describing things by our inability to describe them. That we can’t describe them really doesn’t give us any information about them other than that we can’t describe them.

You reference the other place the problem could reside here:

Thus my argument succeeds precisely because we are talking about a meaningless concept in the first place.

Absolutely-nothing is a meaningless concept. Full stop. There is no proving this, it is simply axiomatic.
All attempts to discuss it run up against that fundamental issue. Absolutely-nothing may be (and likely is) completely impossible, but that too would be axiomatic.

 

[IWantGod]

Just to make sure that you saw. I did point out that all my arguments have the same flaw I am saying your arguments have

My argument doesn’t have a flaw because i don’t treat the idea of nothing as a self-referent and you don’t have any meaningful justification to do so. The whole point of argument number 3 was to expose the error of treating the idea of nothing as a self-referent. Absolutely Nothing cannot be true because it is the absence of truth, and therefore cannot be a possibility. In other-words, anything that cannot be a true state of affairs cannot happen. To operate outside the principle of truth is a meaningless venture from start to finish. So you haven’t refuted anything.

Truth is a principle of existence, and if we describe a truth that is not a being it can only be in reference to the act of existence or an abstract extrapolation from it. Outside of that context, we are not talking about anything meaningful.

 

[STT]

My argument doesn’t have a flaw because i don’t treat the idea of nothing as a self-referent and you don’t have any meaningful justification to do so. The whole point of argument number 3 was to expose the error of treating the idea of nothing as a self-referent. Absolutely Nothing cannot be true because it is the absence of truth, and therefore cannot be a possibility. In other-words, anything that cannot be a true state of affairs cannot happen. To operate outside the principle of truth is a meaningless venture from start to finish. So you haven’t refuted anything.

Truth is a principle of existence and if we describe a truth that is not a being it can only be a reference to existence or an abstract extrapolation from it. Outside of that context, we are not talking about anything meaningful.

The truth doesn’t exist objectively. Therefore your argument doesn’t follow.

 

[IWantGod]

The truth doesn’t exist objectively. Therefore your argument doesn’t follow.

I don’t respond to assertions anymore, so you are going to have to explain what you mean when you say that truth is not objective.

Truth is a principle of existence, and if we describe a truth that is not a being it can only be in reference to the act of existence or an abstract extrapolation from it. Outside of that context, we are not talking about anything meaningful.