Only the idea of nothingness can exist, not nothingness itself.
In other words, "nothing" denotes the absence of something in a given context. So if I step into my shower and look for the bottle of shampoo I was EXPECTING to find but do not find it, I find "nothing" in its place. That doesn't mean the "nothing" exists rather than the shampoo existing. "Nothing" is just a useful placeholder instead of the shampoo bottle. And we use that construct for practical means of linguistic expression.
So nothingness is simply an idea of practical significance with no actual objective corollary. It cannot exist. Therefore the idea "why is there something rather than nothing" is essentially nonsensical. It is like asking "why is there a shampoo bottle when I did not find it?" Your not finding the shampoo bottle does not imply its nonexistence - it only implies your expectations were not met. And your expectations were not met due to a lack of knowledge. You should ask, instead, "why shouldn't something have been all the time instead of nothing?"
Therefore, we have established that something (in Reality) has ALWAYS BEEN. In other words, it is ETERNAL. Now what that is, I will let you decide.
Question for debate: is this reasoning sound?
Simple Proof that Something Has ALWAYS Been
Moderator: Moderators
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Simple Proof that Something Has ALWAYS Been
Post #11I think we would all need to agree to what 'nothing' and 'nothingness' means. Once we have that, I don't see any reason what there can't be 'nothingness', even though that seems to go against human nature. Seeing otherwise strikes me as wishful thinking. Which isn't a bad thing, so long as we acknowledge it as such.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:49 am Only the idea of nothingness can exist, not nothingness itself.
In other words, "nothing" denotes the absence of something in a given context. So if I step into my shower and look for the bottle of shampoo I was EXPECTING to find but do not find it, I find "nothing" in its place. That doesn't mean the "nothing" exists rather than the shampoo existing. "Nothing" is just a useful placeholder instead of the shampoo bottle. And we use that construct for practical means of linguistic expression.
So nothingness is simply an idea of practical significance with no actual objective corollary. It cannot exist. Therefore the idea "why is there something rather than nothing" is essentially nonsensical. It is like asking "why is there a shampoo bottle when I did not find it?" Your not finding the shampoo bottle does not imply its nonexistence - it only implies your expectations were not met. And your expectations were not met due to a lack of knowledge. You should ask, instead, "why shouldn't something have been all the time instead of nothing?"
Therefore, we have established that something (in Reality) has ALWAYS BEEN. In other words, it is ETERNAL. Now what that is, I will let you decide.
Question for debate: is this reasoning sound?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1669
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Re: Simple Proof that Something Has ALWAYS Been
Post #12Contingent in the sense that it depends on some prior reality. Anything that is made/created is contingent. The material universe is contingent because it requires a non material reality to precede it. Necessary reality precedes created/contingent reality.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 2:42 pmAnyway, I feel that if you can have God be a necessary being, then why not the universe itself? You might say that the universe is contingent, but contingent in what sense?
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Simple Proof that Something Has ALWAYS Been
Post #13In addition to saying that the universe requires a nonmaterial reality preceding it [rather than infinite regression], it can also be said that it requires a nonmaterial reality underlying it [rather than infinite reduction].mgb wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:12 pmContingent in the sense that it depends on some prior reality. Anything that is made/created is contingent. The material universe is contingent because it requires a non material reality to precede it. Necessary reality precedes created/contingent reality.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 2:42 pmAnyway, I feel that if you can have God be a necessary being, then why not the universe itself? You might say that the universe is contingent, but contingent in what sense?