I think something and nothing co-existed. So the question is Why was there a something and a nothing and not just a something or nothing. Perhaps because if there was just a something then there must also be a nothing and if there is nothing then there must be a something. Also if nothing exist then it must be a something. Otherwise it could not exist. Hmm? Is nothing a something. Could infinite time have always existed and be the reason for something existing.
Samuel Johnson’s Dict. (1765) defines nothing. The punctuation looks a bit off; but if you read it carefully, it isn’t.
Nothing. It is most certain, that there could never be nothing. For if there could have been an instant, wherein there was no thing, then either nothing made something or something made itself; and so was, and acted, before it was. But if there never could be nothing; then there is, and was, a being of necessity, without any beginning. Grew's Caf.
Daetelus, Hi. I think this is a fairly good explanation. I'd like to add that if what we've always considered to be "nothing" (no matter, energy, space, volume, time, ideas, concepts, mathematical truths, minds, etc.) were the case, then this "nothing" would completely describe, or define, the entirety of what is present and would thus be an existent state. This is the cause for why nothing exists. See sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite for more. Thanks!
Wouldn't lack of cause for something to exit be sufficient for that thing to not exist? And defining lack of something as something certainly would be tricky.
Yes, a lack of cause to exist "is" a cause to not exist. And a cause to exist is a lack of cause to not exist.
I didn't define a lack of something as something. I defined a lack of cause as a cause - there's a big difference. A lack of a cause does not mean the lack of somethingness altogether. It just means that particular cause is not present.
@Daetelus Is that not the same as saying what was outside the universe before the big bank. The lack of a cause as a somethingness or is a cause, would be like saying there was nothing outside the universe before the big bank. If there is a lack of a cause is a cause or is a somethingness then nothingness must also be a something. I think I put that right.
It's incredibly difficult to make out what you're saying or asking, and I can't say that I've figured out either. But it does seem like I should emphasize a couple of points. One, "a lack of a cause" does not refer to the lack of any or all causes, just a particular cause, in this case, the cause to exist. And, two, while in the context of this video, "nothing" could be defined as a thing in a grammatical sense, it remains to be not a thing in every other sense. Hope that helps.
@Daetelus Yea sorry about the difficulty of my previous comment I realise more now what you are saying in your video. Correct me if I am wrong Your saying that a lack of a cause is a cause and therefore is a something. If that is correct. Then its still possible for there to have been nothing. As the lack of a cause as a cause would be the cause to been nothing or to not exist Even if that cause is the only thing that exist It seems your better than me at this. So I'll leave it to you Good luck.
@Daetelus Something exist because a nothing cannot exist. Otherwise nothing would be a something and therefore must exist So therefore nothing cannot exist. That's why there is a something. ?
The best answer to this question I have come across is this:
Nothing exists except logical possibility, which necessarily exists, and our perception of material existence is an epiphenomenon of our being logical subcomponents of a logically possible universe.
I'd link you to the website where I read that but YouTube won't let me, so type into Google: "Nothing exists except logical possibility" in quote marks, & you'll be able to find the answer on the knowinghumans website among others.
I suppose "proof of a negative" would be accurate since I'm claiming our own existence to be proof that the cause of nothing existing does not exist. Ad-ignorantiam, however, I have no idea where you get. Ad-ingnorantiams are arguments that favor a proposition on the basis that no alternative argument has been proven. Thus, a common feature of ad-ignorantiams is shifting the burden of proof, a feature which I'm pretty sure my video does not possess.
@Daetelus Fair enough. Like I said, I may have misunderstood your point. Now, however, it seems as though you're trying to quantify "nothing"; when the very meaning of nothing is the lack of everything.
@Daetelus You claim that, in order for nothing to exist, something would have to exist for it to be so. The problem is, nothing doesn't even have to exist: nothing is the natural state. For there to be more than nothing, something must exist. To claim that something must exist, to cause nothing to exist, either implies that whatever exists is keeping things from existing, or that nothing is some kind of thing that either exists, or doesn't.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Daetelus It occurs to me that nothing, and something, could exist side-by-side, if they are segregated. What I mean is, for an example, the recent discovery of a seemingly-blank spot above the Northern sky. If there really is nothing there, it's there because there is a lack of every quantifiable thing in that area. However, there need not be a lack of quantifiable things in the surrounding area, because nothing is not there... indeed, some things are there.
Isn't that the same as saying something could exist? What is the purpose of this statement?
". . . nothing is the natural state."
This is where we disagree. The statement I made at the beginning of the video, "The reality in which nothing exists is no less contingent than the reality in which something exists," means nothingness is no more the natural state than somethingness is.
"To claim that something must exist, to cause nothing to exist, either impies . . . ."
I would say it implies both. The cause of nothingness would be that which keeps everything from existing - including itself. And it was intended to suggest that the reality in which nothing eixsts may either exist or not exist.
"It occurs to me that nothing, and something, could exist side-by-side . . . ," then we wouldn't be talking about the same kind of nothing. When I speak of nothing or nothingness, I'm refering to the reality in which nothing exists. A "seemingly-blank spot" would be empty space, which is still something.
@Daetelus I'll admit, it's not an ideal reference. Part of the problem of living in a universe in which we've never experienced "nothing", is that we can only discuss what it would be like; which means we still have to rely on descriptions of things... It can get quite frustrating!
@Daetelus "...the reality in which nothing exists may either exist, or not exist". Perhaps. I suppose it would depend on the way in which "exist" is intended.
"The cause of nothingness would be that which keeps everything from existing - including itself." To me, this statement seems to indicate that there must be a cause of that which doesn't exist, or that something is the natural state. Am I correct in assuming that's the point?
@Daetelus "...the same as saying something could exist..." That wasn't my intention. My point was that, since nothing is an absence of all things, and existence - by definition, - is something composed of matter or energy, nothing neither exists, nor need exist.
"This is where we disagree". Okay, I can accept that we disagree. There are now two conceptions at stake: either nothing is natural, or matter and energy are eternal and self-existent. One had to come first: nothing, or everything.
"I suppose it would depend on the way in which 'exist' is intended."
Agreed. My choice of words in that statement was actually quite poor. It really depends on what is meant by "may". By "may exist," I only mean the condition in which not one thing exists is a condition that's not conceptually nonsensical. And by "may not exist," I only mean the condition in which not one thing exists is a condition that's not a natural one.
"To me, this statement seems to indicate that there must be a cause of that which doesn't exist, or that something is the nautural state."
I don't mean to imply that a cause must exist for something that does not exist - only that a cause must exist for the conditon in which not one thing exists.
But I do suppose I have been basically arguing that somethingness is the natural state, since I do hold that the laws of existence and reason are self existent - though I never thought of it that way before - but I don't mean to imply that either matter or energy is self existent - only that they are a deterministic consequence of what is self existent.
". . . existence - by definition, - is something composed of matter or energy . . ."
There have been many attempts to define existence, but all of them are mere approximations. The one you've mentioned I'm sorry to say I consider to be insufficient, for it does not allow me to say that space and time exist. To say nothing exists is merely to say no thing exists or not one thing exists.
I'm afraid I can't agree. Causally speaking, laws came first - laws are neither nothing nor everything. Temporally speaking, no thing came first. This is NOT to say, however, that the condition in which no thing exists is the conditon that came first. I mean to say that which is first does not exist. I think all things possible exist, always have existed, and always will exist.
Oh, and, by the way, I don't know who's been voting down your comments and marking them as spam, but I have nothing to do with it. If the person who is doing it is reading this . . . please stop.
@Daetelus I think I have an idea about who's doing this... and they usually do the same thing to my videos. I won't call them out here, but I will say that they're upset because they couldn't get me to give in to their illogical and hostile statements, and I wouldn't stand for their offensive insinuations about me. I don't think they'll stop, no matter who asks them to stop... personally, I couldn't care less: it just makes my comments all the more appealing. People want to know what was so bad.
I can see your point, but I must disagree to some extent. It seems to me that laws come from the way that certain active and inactive structures interact. In whatever case, we can indeed say that laws are some of the first things to come to being.
@Daetelus Good point. As space and time obviously exist, I can see how the above definition would be insufficient. In my opinion, time and space are functions of existence - space between two existent points (or potential points), and the progression of activity in material existence. Then again, if we do consider space and time to exist independently, it would appear that the above definition needs to be revised...
@Daetelus I'll admit that my explanation was somewhat restrictive. If they are deterministic consequences of that which is self-existent, I guess my next question would have to be, "What, then, is self-existent?"
@Daetelus Okay... Active structures would be those structures which operate at least semi-independently of natural cycles; humans, dogs, bacteria, etc. Inactive structures would be those structures which function, in a responsive manner, to natural cycles; such as the sand of the shore, comets, and the atomic structures of stars.
Actually, I'm going by the assumption that there "would have to be" something to begin with to remove everything. But since we know everything is not removed, then we also know such a thing does not exist. This video attempts to explain why such a thing does not exist. And I think it's because its existence would count as a paradox, since by virtue of its existence nothing would exist.
hahahaha "such a cause would its self would be something wouldnt it?" um yea duh cause there would have to be someone around to percieve it lmao you just think it now cause ur alive wke up... becausein order for nothing to exist conciousness cant exist..but scince it does everything exists..now why something instead of nothing? because thats just the way it is..because from nothing can come something as quantim dinamics allows
I still don´t get it. And if the cause(the something) for the nothingness is a paradox and according to you cannot therefore exist, does that not leave us with non-existance? I have to listen to you again... And Please help with a coment to my coment. I would love to get it.
If the cause of nothingness exists, then nothing exists. If nothing exists, then the cause of nothingness does not exist. So if the cause of nothingness exists, then the cause of nothingness does not exist.
It is illogical for the cause of nothingness to exist; therefore, it simply doesn't. And, because it doesn't, nothingness cannot exist either, which means something must exist.
@Daetelus how do you conclued that nothingness would not be self existent?
and how can either hypothetical be other than self-existant? If somethingness or no-thingness need a cause, then doesn´t the cause need a cause? and so on...
nothingness does not require existance and somethingness does require existance. Cause in both cases is irrelevant but the latter still demands existance.
And so, I humbly continue to wonder, why something rather than nothing?
I think you may be misunderstanding what I mean by self-existent. Try watching my very first video, "Grounds for Positive Atheism: Part 1." I think that may just clear some thing up here.
But, in the meantime, I conclude that nothingness is not self-existent because if nothingness were self-existent, then nothing would exist, but we know that's not the case, so it follows that nothingness is not self-existent.
Thank you for your interest in my videos. Unfortunately, though, I think we may be hitting a communication barrier. The sentence, "I wonder not if we exist or if non-existance could exist relative to existance," makes little sense to me. It seems as if you're trying to tell me what you're not asking, but I don't recognize either question as one that I thought you were asking.
As for "Why something," I thought my first response to you answered this. Does it not?
0= 1+ (-1) The universe from nothing. (-1) is anti matter, 1 is the universe and 0 is nothing. Now "believers" will have to deny anti matter aswell as gravity and the contant speed of light.
This seems to be coming from a place where things do exist, so existence is presupposed. If nothing ever existed in the first place, there would be no cause of nothing, instead there would just be nothing.
I assume I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but after listening 3 times, I still get this impression.
The causality I speak of is not temporal. In order for nothing to exist - even in the first place, there must exist a "reason" for why nothing exists rather than something.
@Daetelus But if nothing exists, a true nothing, then there would be no reason either. Absolute nothing is nothing. The existence of nothing is not an actual existence in which to debate reason. Rather, it is a nonexistence.
Further, existence can't have reason, because it would be necessary for something to exist to give reason for the existence of something.
So, even asking why something exists instead of nothing is an incoherent question. There can be no "why".
True. It is incoherent to ask why reason exists, and reason itself is something. But I'm operating under the assumption that reason is self existent. If you would like a better understanding of my view on this, I invite you to watch "Grounds for Positive Atheism: Part 1."
Your Stateist Profs have done a great job at filling your head with mush ! You're one of those Kool-Aid drinkers that 1st has to debate "What the definition of 'Is' is. You pseudo-intellectual Ball-Bag !
Next quetion is Why things are the way they are. Why the laws of the universe are the way they are.
ZeusHelios 1 month ago
Comment removed
ZeusHelios 1 month ago
I think something and nothing co-existed. So the question is Why was there a something and a nothing and not just a something or nothing. Perhaps because if there was just a something then there must also be a nothing and if there is nothing then there must be a something. Also if nothing exist then it must be a something. Otherwise it could not exist. Hmm? Is nothing a something. Could infinite time have always existed and be the reason for something existing.
ZeusHelios 1 month ago
Samuel Johnson’s Dict. (1765) defines nothing. The punctuation looks a bit off; but if you read it carefully, it isn’t.
Nothing. It is most certain, that there could never be nothing. For if there could have been an instant, wherein there was no thing, then either nothing made something or something made itself; and so was, and acted, before it was. But if there never could be nothing; then there is, and was, a being of necessity, without any beginning. Grew's Caf.
anatureperson 4 months ago
Daetelus, Hi. I think this is a fairly good explanation. I'd like to add that if what we've always considered to be "nothing" (no matter, energy, space, volume, time, ideas, concepts, mathematical truths, minds, etc.) were the case, then this "nothing" would completely describe, or define, the entirety of what is present and would thus be an existent state. This is the cause for why nothing exists. See sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite for more. Thanks!
846roger 5 months ago
Wouldn't lack of cause for something to exit be sufficient for that thing to not exist? And defining lack of something as something certainly would be tricky.
saldownik 1 year ago
@saldownik
Yes, a lack of cause to exist "is" a cause to not exist. And a cause to exist is a lack of cause to not exist.
I didn't define a lack of something as something. I defined a lack of cause as a cause - there's a big difference. A lack of a cause does not mean the lack of somethingness altogether. It just means that particular cause is not present.
Daetelus 10 months ago
@Daetelus Is that not the same as saying what was outside the universe before the big bank. The lack of a cause as a somethingness or is a cause, would be like saying there was nothing outside the universe before the big bank. If there is a lack of a cause is a cause or is a somethingness then nothingness must also be a something. I think I put that right.
ZeusHelios 1 month ago
@ZeusHelios
It's incredibly difficult to make out what you're saying or asking, and I can't say that I've figured out either. But it does seem like I should emphasize a couple of points. One, "a lack of a cause" does not refer to the lack of any or all causes, just a particular cause, in this case, the cause to exist. And, two, while in the context of this video, "nothing" could be defined as a thing in a grammatical sense, it remains to be not a thing in every other sense. Hope that helps.
Daetelus 2 days ago
@Daetelus Yea sorry about the difficulty of my previous comment I realise more now what you are saying in your video. Correct me if I am wrong Your saying that a lack of a cause is a cause and therefore is a something. If that is correct. Then its still possible for there to have been nothing. As the lack of a cause as a cause would be the cause to been nothing or to not exist Even if that cause is the only thing that exist It seems your better than me at this. So I'll leave it to you Good luck.
ZeusHelios 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daetelus Something exist because a nothing cannot exist. Otherwise nothing would be a something and therefore must exist So therefore nothing cannot exist. That's why there is a something. ?
ZeusHelios 1 month ago
The best answer to this question I have come across is this:
Nothing exists except logical possibility, which necessarily exists, and our perception of material existence is an epiphenomenon of our being logical subcomponents of a logically possible universe.
I'd link you to the website where I read that but YouTube won't let me, so type into Google: "Nothing exists except logical possibility" in quote marks, & you'll be able to find the answer on the knowinghumans website among others.
MoralNihilism 1 year ago
There is no cause for nothing to exist because there is no cause for no cause.
nsecchi 1 year ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but this sounds like a combination of an ad-ignorantium, and proof of a negative.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@dameon692002
I suppose "proof of a negative" would be accurate since I'm claiming our own existence to be proof that the cause of nothing existing does not exist. Ad-ignorantiam, however, I have no idea where you get. Ad-ingnorantiams are arguments that favor a proposition on the basis that no alternative argument has been proven. Thus, a common feature of ad-ignorantiams is shifting the burden of proof, a feature which I'm pretty sure my video does not possess.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@Daetelus Fair enough. Like I said, I may have misunderstood your point. Now, however, it seems as though you're trying to quantify "nothing"; when the very meaning of nothing is the lack of everything.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@dameon692002
I'm afraid I have once again failed to follow you. How do I try to quantify "nothing"? I agree that nothing is the lack of everything.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@Daetelus You claim that, in order for nothing to exist, something would have to exist for it to be so. The problem is, nothing doesn't even have to exist: nothing is the natural state. For there to be more than nothing, something must exist. To claim that something must exist, to cause nothing to exist, either implies that whatever exists is keeping things from existing, or that nothing is some kind of thing that either exists, or doesn't.
dameon692002 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Daetelus It occurs to me that nothing, and something, could exist side-by-side, if they are segregated. What I mean is, for an example, the recent discovery of a seemingly-blank spot above the Northern sky. If there really is nothing there, it's there because there is a lack of every quantifiable thing in that area. However, there need not be a lack of quantifiable things in the surrounding area, because nothing is not there... indeed, some things are there.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@dameon692002
". . . nothing doesn't even have to exist."
Isn't that the same as saying something could exist? What is the purpose of this statement?
". . . nothing is the natural state."
This is where we disagree. The statement I made at the beginning of the video, "The reality in which nothing exists is no less contingent than the reality in which something exists," means nothingness is no more the natural state than somethingness is.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@dameon692002
"To claim that something must exist, to cause nothing to exist, either impies . . . ."
I would say it implies both. The cause of nothingness would be that which keeps everything from existing - including itself. And it was intended to suggest that the reality in which nothing eixsts may either exist or not exist.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@dameon692002
"It occurs to me that nothing, and something, could exist side-by-side . . . ," then we wouldn't be talking about the same kind of nothing. When I speak of nothing or nothingness, I'm refering to the reality in which nothing exists. A "seemingly-blank spot" would be empty space, which is still something.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@Daetelus I'll admit, it's not an ideal reference. Part of the problem of living in a universe in which we've never experienced "nothing", is that we can only discuss what it would be like; which means we still have to rely on descriptions of things... It can get quite frustrating!
dameon692002 1 year ago
@Daetelus "...the reality in which nothing exists may either exist, or not exist". Perhaps. I suppose it would depend on the way in which "exist" is intended.
"The cause of nothingness would be that which keeps everything from existing - including itself." To me, this statement seems to indicate that there must be a cause of that which doesn't exist, or that something is the natural state. Am I correct in assuming that's the point?
dameon692002 1 year ago
@Daetelus "...the same as saying something could exist..." That wasn't my intention. My point was that, since nothing is an absence of all things, and existence - by definition, - is something composed of matter or energy, nothing neither exists, nor need exist.
"This is where we disagree". Okay, I can accept that we disagree. There are now two conceptions at stake: either nothing is natural, or matter and energy are eternal and self-existent. One had to come first: nothing, or everything.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@dameon692002
Comment Group: 1
Sequence within group: 1
"I suppose it would depend on the way in which 'exist' is intended."
Agreed. My choice of words in that statement was actually quite poor. It really depends on what is meant by "may". By "may exist," I only mean the condition in which not one thing exists is a condition that's not conceptually nonsensical. And by "may not exist," I only mean the condition in which not one thing exists is a condition that's not a natural one.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@dameon692002
Comment Group: 1
Sequence within group: 2
"To me, this statement seems to indicate that there must be a cause of that which doesn't exist, or that something is the nautural state."
I don't mean to imply that a cause must exist for something that does not exist - only that a cause must exist for the conditon in which not one thing exists.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@dameon692002
Comment Group: 1
Sequence within group: 3
But I do suppose I have been basically arguing that somethingness is the natural state, since I do hold that the laws of existence and reason are self existent - though I never thought of it that way before - but I don't mean to imply that either matter or energy is self existent - only that they are a deterministic consequence of what is self existent.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@dameon692002
Comment Group: 1
Sequence within group: 4
". . . existence - by definition, - is something composed of matter or energy . . ."
There have been many attempts to define existence, but all of them are mere approximations. The one you've mentioned I'm sorry to say I consider to be insufficient, for it does not allow me to say that space and time exist. To say nothing exists is merely to say no thing exists or not one thing exists.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@dameon692002
Comment Group: 1
Sequence within group: 5
"One had to come first: nothing, or everything."
I'm afraid I can't agree. Causally speaking, laws came first - laws are neither nothing nor everything. Temporally speaking, no thing came first. This is NOT to say, however, that the condition in which no thing exists is the conditon that came first. I mean to say that which is first does not exist. I think all things possible exist, always have existed, and always will exist.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@dameon692002
Comment Group: 1
Sequence within group: 6
Oh, and, by the way, I don't know who's been voting down your comments and marking them as spam, but I have nothing to do with it. If the person who is doing it is reading this . . . please stop.
Daetelus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daetelus I think I have an idea about who's doing this... and they usually do the same thing to my videos. I won't call them out here, but I will say that they're upset because they couldn't get me to give in to their illogical and hostile statements, and I wouldn't stand for their offensive insinuations about me. I don't think they'll stop, no matter who asks them to stop... personally, I couldn't care less: it just makes my comments all the more appealing. People want to know what was so bad.
dameon692002 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daetelus This is an enjoyable discussion...
I can see your point, but I must disagree to some extent. It seems to me that laws come from the way that certain active and inactive structures interact. In whatever case, we can indeed say that laws are some of the first things to come to being.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@Daetelus Good point. As space and time obviously exist, I can see how the above definition would be insufficient. In my opinion, time and space are functions of existence - space between two existent points (or potential points), and the progression of activity in material existence. Then again, if we do consider space and time to exist independently, it would appear that the above definition needs to be revised...
dameon692002 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daetelus I'll admit that my explanation was somewhat restrictive. If they are deterministic consequences of that which is self-existent, I guess my next question would have to be, "What, then, is self-existent?"
dameon692002 1 year ago
@dameon692002
"This is an enjoyable discussion..."
I'm very glad you find it so.
"What, then, is self-existent?"
The laws of existence and reason. Now, I have a question for you. What are active and inactive structures?
Daetelus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daetelus Okay... Active structures would be those structures which operate at least semi-independently of natural cycles; humans, dogs, bacteria, etc. Inactive structures would be those structures which function, in a responsive manner, to natural cycles; such as the sand of the shore, comets, and the atomic structures of stars.
dameon692002 1 year ago
You go by the assumption that there is something to begin with to remove everything. Why does that something exist to begin with?
I'm pretty sure it's an impossible question. But, I'm only "pretty sure", not "entirely sure".
madichelp0 1 year ago
@madichelp0
Actually, I'm going by the assumption that there "would have to be" something to begin with to remove everything. But since we know everything is not removed, then we also know such a thing does not exist. This video attempts to explain why such a thing does not exist. And I think it's because its existence would count as a paradox, since by virtue of its existence nothing would exist.
Daetelus 1 year ago
hahahaha "such a cause would its self would be something wouldnt it?" um yea duh cause there would have to be someone around to percieve it lmao you just think it now cause ur alive wke up... becausein order for nothing to exist conciousness cant exist..but scince it does everything exists..now why something instead of nothing? because thats just the way it is..because from nothing can come something as quantim dinamics allows
4deep81k 1 year ago
I still don´t get it. And if the cause(the something) for the nothingness is a paradox and according to you cannot therefore exist, does that not leave us with non-existance? I have to listen to you again... And Please help with a coment to my coment. I would love to get it.
lindarajalin1 1 year ago
@lindarajalin1
If the cause of nothingness exists, then nothing exists. If nothing exists, then the cause of nothingness does not exist. So if the cause of nothingness exists, then the cause of nothingness does not exist.
It is illogical for the cause of nothingness to exist; therefore, it simply doesn't. And, because it doesn't, nothingness cannot exist either, which means something must exist.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@Daetelus why would nothingness require a cause?
lindarajalin1 1 year ago
@lindarajalin1
Because all things not self-existent require a cause. Nothingness is not self-existent; therefore, nothingness requires a cause.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@Daetelus how do you conclued that nothingness would not be self existent?
and how can either hypothetical be other than self-existant? If somethingness or no-thingness need a cause, then doesn´t the cause need a cause? and so on...
nothingness does not require existance and somethingness does require existance. Cause in both cases is irrelevant but the latter still demands existance.
And so, I humbly continue to wonder, why something rather than nothing?
lindarajalin1 1 year ago
@lindarajalin1
I think you may be misunderstanding what I mean by self-existent. Try watching my very first video, "Grounds for Positive Atheism: Part 1." I think that may just clear some thing up here.
But, in the meantime, I conclude that nothingness is not self-existent because if nothingness were self-existent, then nothing would exist, but we know that's not the case, so it follows that nothingness is not self-existent.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@Daetelus I watched youre first videos.Thank you.
Are you saying that nothing does not exist because we know something is existing - e.g. us?
In that case, I am asking a different question. I wonder not if we exist or if non-existance could exist relative to existance.
I´m asking the first why. Why something?
Why is somethingness more likely than nothingness?
What do you think?
Thank you for your stimulating videos and responses to my questions.
lindarajalin1 1 year ago
@lindarajalin1
Thank you for your interest in my videos. Unfortunately, though, I think we may be hitting a communication barrier. The sentence, "I wonder not if we exist or if non-existance could exist relative to existance," makes little sense to me. It seems as if you're trying to tell me what you're not asking, but I don't recognize either question as one that I thought you were asking.
As for "Why something," I thought my first response to you answered this. Does it not?
Daetelus 1 year ago
0= 1+ (-1) The universe from nothing. (-1) is anti matter, 1 is the universe and 0 is nothing. Now "believers" will have to deny anti matter aswell as gravity and the contant speed of light.
Great video!
MWcrazyhorse 1 year ago
This seems to be coming from a place where things do exist, so existence is presupposed. If nothing ever existed in the first place, there would be no cause of nothing, instead there would just be nothing.
I assume I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but after listening 3 times, I still get this impression.
poduck2 1 year ago 2
@poduck2
The causality I speak of is not temporal. In order for nothing to exist - even in the first place, there must exist a "reason" for why nothing exists rather than something.
Daetelus 1 year ago
@Daetelus But if nothing exists, a true nothing, then there would be no reason either. Absolute nothing is nothing. The existence of nothing is not an actual existence in which to debate reason. Rather, it is a nonexistence.
Further, existence can't have reason, because it would be necessary for something to exist to give reason for the existence of something.
So, even asking why something exists instead of nothing is an incoherent question. There can be no "why".
poduck2 1 year ago 2
@poduck2
True. It is incoherent to ask why reason exists, and reason itself is something. But I'm operating under the assumption that reason is self existent. If you would like a better understanding of my view on this, I invite you to watch "Grounds for Positive Atheism: Part 1."
Daetelus 1 year ago
Your Stateist Profs have done a great job at filling your head with mush ! You're one of those Kool-Aid drinkers that 1st has to debate "What the definition of 'Is' is. You pseudo-intellectual Ball-Bag !
ChicagoNeilcon 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Thank you. I always have too.
Daetelus 1 year ago