Why "nothing" cannot exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
davidv said:
None the imperfections listed prevent the bearer from from choosing good instead of evil.
Click to expand...
Actually, they do.

A kleptomaniac has no choice but to steal.

Someone with Turret’s syndrome has no choice but to curse.

People are born imperfect (buggy software) and fall 7 times a day (and that’s for a just man! Other people fall more!)

Someone with an addiction will do evil to feed their addiction. No choice.

We ALL have the imperfection of concupiscence, that reduces or eliminates our free will.

Imperfections reduce or eliminate free will. Free will is at best a cruel joke or nonexistent at worst.
 
STT said:
You need to prove that “nothing” cannot exist first.
Click to expand...
If there is such a thing as the logically impossible or logically possible, how could there ever be a state where that wasn’t true?

The fact that there cannot be a square-triangle represents an ontological restriction, it is a fact about existence and it is a fact that is eternally true. There will never be a state where that is not true.

As soon as you remove existence from the equation, the very idea of possible and impossible becomes meaningless because there is nothing at all. There is no thing that is impossible and at the same time there is no thing that is possible; it cancels itself out destroys the very concept of truth itself. Absolutely Nothing is an intrinsically contradictory state. This contradicts the fact that there are in fact eternal truths that never change.

That is why absolutely nothing cannot exist.
 
IWantGod said:
If there is such a thing as the logically impossible or logically possible, how could there ever be a state where that wasn’t true?

The fact that there cannot be a square-triangle represents an ontological restriction, it is a fact about existence and it is a fact that is eternally true. There will never be a state where that is not true.

As soon as you remove existence from the equation, the very idea of possible and impossible becomes meaningless because there is nothing at all. There is no thing that is impossible and at the same time there is no thing that is possible; it cancels itself out destroys the very concept of truth itself. Absolutely Nothing is an intrinsically contradictory state. This contradicts the fact that there are in fact eternal truths that never change.

That is why absolutely nothing cannot exist.
Click to expand...
I understand that nothing even the idea of “nothing” cannot exist if “nothing” exists. But why is there any problem here? There is only no idea at all. There is in fact a period in which no human was not living on Earth and there was of course no abstract idea at all.
 
STT said:
It is not about me alone. It is about existence in general.

There is nothing like that before our conceptions. I don’t know about after death.
Click to expand...
Then the same applies to the generality of creation, not just you alone. Unless you are saying that you alone have prior non-existence whilst everyone and everything else is pre-eternal.
 
SalamKhan said:
Then the same applies to the generality of creation, not just you alone.
Click to expand...
One can question the act of creation. Existence is fundamental if nothing is logically impossible. I have an argument against the act of creation and I can share it with you if you wish.
SalamKhan said:
Unless you are saying that you alone have prior non-existence whilst everyone and everything else is pre-eternal.
Click to expand...
What do you mean with pre-eternal?
 
STT said:
One can question the act of creation. Existence is fundamental if nothing is logically impossible. I have an argument against the act of creation and I can share it with you if you wish.

What do you mean with pre-eternal?
Click to expand...
Again, nothing=non-existence. If one cannot grasp this concept, then his arrogant boast that he has an argument against the creation of the universe can be rightly dismissed.

Pre-eternality=Beginninglessness.
 
SalamKhan said:
Again, nothing=non-existence. If one cannot grasp this concept, then his arrogant boast that he has an argument against the creation of the universe can be rightly dismissed.
Click to expand...
Can you conceive “nothing”? I can.
 
STT said:
Can you conceive “nothing”? I can.
Click to expand...
You are truly foolish. Something that is impossible, its existence cannot be conceived of in the mind, yet you claim you can conceive the existence of something which you consider to be absolutely impossible.
 
STT said:
I am not foolish. Please leave the discussion before becoming arrogant. Specially when you fail to reason properly.
Click to expand...
You should know what you’re talking about before you so arrogantly post an argument (but ironically accuse others of arrogance).
  • You stated that ‘nothing’ is absolutely impossible.
  • An impossiblity is something the mind cannot conceive the existence of.
  • You then state that you can conceive the existence of ‘nothing’, which you previously stated is absolutely impossible.
  • You then define ‘nothing’ as the non-existence of entities/things, which was my argument that you opposed.
Where then did my reasoning fail as you assert (as expected from someone of such perverse and feeble intellect)?
 
SalamKhan said:
You should know what you’re talking about before you so arrogantly post an argument (but ironically accuse others of arrogance).
  • You stated that ‘nothing’ is absolutely impossible.
  • An impossiblity is something the mind cannot conceive the existence of.
  • You then state that you can conceive the existence of ‘nothing’, which you previously stated is absolutely impossible.
  • You then define ‘nothing’ as the non-existence of entities/things, which was my argument that you opposed.
Where then did my reasoning fail as you assert (as expected from someone of such perverse and feeble intellect)?
Click to expand...
Where did I say that “nothing” is logically impossible? I said that existence is fundamental if one can show that “nothing” is logically impossible.
 
STT said:
Where did I say that “nothing” is logically impossible? I said that existence is fundamental if one can show that “nothing” is logically impossible.
Click to expand...
Either way, that is still false and another pseudo-intellectual argument. How could the existence of anything in this universe be fundamental i.e. necessary, when everything changes? Something that is necessary, means that the mind cannot conceive its non-existence. For example, if a man is standing in a certain spot, we know that the existence of him standing in that spot is only possible/contingent and not necessary, for he was not always standing there nor will he always be standing there.
 
SalamKhan said:
Either way, that is still false and another pseudo-intellectual argument. How could the existence of anything in this universe be fundamental i.e. necessary, when everything changes?
Click to expand...
Why something which changes cannot be necessary? Do you have an argument for that? Please note that what you are questioning is off topic. Here we are looking for an argument which shows that “nothing” cannot exist. The argument shows that God or universe should exist. We are talking about existence in general.
SalamKhan said:
Something that is necessary, means that the mind cannot conceive its non-existence. For example, if a man is standing in a certain spot, we know that the existence of him standing in that spot is only possible/contingent and not necessary, for he was not always standing there nor will he always be standing there.
Click to expand...
It is necessity that certain things changes accordingly and uniquely.
 
STT said:
Why something which changes cannot be necessary? Do you have an argument for that? Please note that what you are questioning is off topic. Here we are looking for an argument which shows that “nothing” cannot exist. The argument shows that God or universe could exist. We are talking about existence in general.

It is necessity that certain things changes accordingly and uniquely.
Click to expand...
If it is necessary, then its non-existence is impossible. If something changed from A to B, then A was only possible and not necessary because its existence ceased, likewise B is only possible and not necessary because it had no prior existence; and once again, something necessary, cannot be non-existent.

We consider things operating on our own level to be necessary, exclusively from our empirical judgement. Whereas I am talking about existence in general, which is from intellectual judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top