Why "nothing" cannot exist?

[STT]

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.

It is necessity that certain things exist. It could change or be static. We cannot possibly perceive any thing from a being which doesn’t occupy any location and doesn’t change (no prophecy). The concept of God is incoherent.

I have an argument against the act of creation: Time is fundamental variable of any dynamical theory therefore it cannot be an emergent phenomena in the same theory. This means that time cannot be initiated.

 

[SalamKhan]

It is necessity that certain things exist. It could change or be static. We cannot possibly perceive any thing from a being which doesn’t occupy any location and doesn’t change (no prophecy). The concept of God is incoherent.

I have an argument against the act of creation: Time is fundamental variable of any dynamical theory therefore it cannot be an emergent phenomena in the same theory. This means that time cannot be initiated.

More foolishness. Location cannot be attributed to the entity of Allah, for it would make Allah dependent on location. Allah is not a substance which can be attached to or detached from space, in Islam we say that Allah is neither inside the universe nor outside of it, because He transcends His creation.

I have demonstrated the proof of creation from intellectual reasoning, in the long post I asked you to read. That we are here at the present moment proves a starting point, as I have pointed out in that long post, and that without a starting point we would never arrive at the present moment, for it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present moment; I have pointed this fact out as well.

I have wasted my time by staying here arguing, much longer than I should have. If you have any further enquiries, read the works of the Classical Asha`ri theologians, with patience, understanding, and humility.

 

[STT]

More foolishness. Location cannot be attributed to the entity of Allah, for it would make Allah dependent on location. Allah is not a substance which can be attached to or detached from space, in Islam we say that Allah is neither inside the universe nor outside of it, because He transcends His creation.

Transcends? We invent such a concept when we fail to describe an incoherent concept.

I have demonstrated the proof of creation from intellectual reasoning, in the long post I asked you to read. That we are here at the present moment proves a starting point, as I have pointed out in that long post, and that without a starting point we would never arrive at the present moment, for it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present moment; I have pointed this fact out as well.

I have already proved that time cannot be created.

I have wasted my time by staying here arguing, much longer than I should have. If you have any further enquiries, read the works of the Classical Asha`ri theologians, with patience, understanding, and humility.

Thank you for your time.

 

[IWantGod]

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.

Did you not comprehend the part where i speak of logical truth and impossibility?

 

[STT]

Did you not comprehend the part where i speak of logical truth and impossibility?

I understand it well. The universe is logical necessity when one shows that “nothing” cannot exist and act of creation is logically impossible. I have an argument against the act of creation: Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical system therefore it cannot be an emergent property of the same theory. You need a dynamical theory with time as an emergent phenomena in order to create. This means that time cannot be created.

 

[IWantGod]

I understand it well.

I don’t think you do.

The universe is logical necessity when one shows that “nothing” cannot exist and act of creation is logically impossible.

No. Something is logically necessary when one shows that nothing cannot exist and that something is not the universe because it changes. Since the universe is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination it requires an uncaused cause for its act of existing; otherwise the universe cannot exist…

I have an argument against the act of creation:

Not a very good one

Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical system therefore it cannot be an emergent property of the same theory. You need a dynamical theory with time as an emergent phenomena in order to create. This means that time cannot be created.

You have to prove that change is a necessary aspect of necessary reality. Unfortunately for wanabe naturalists that is not possible.

 

[STT]

I don’t think you do.

Well, lets try if I can understand it.

No. Something is logically necessary when one shows that nothing cannot exist and that something is not the universe because it changes. Since the universe is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination it requires an uncaused cause for its act of existing; otherwise the universe cannot exist…

Why a changing universe cannot be necessary?

Not a very good one

Yes, it is very good one. I can in fact argue you that a eternal God cannot decide and act either. Was God free to decide about the act of creation? How a actual thing could be potential at the same time?

You have to prove that change is a necessary aspect of necessary reality. Unfortunately for wanabe naturalists that is not possible.

I proved that time cannot be created. Where is your counter argument?