Opening Thoughts On A Universe From Nothing

[Chrawnus]

Different nothing - see post 3. The self can cease to exist just as it did not exist before it was born. But I do not think that is the topic here.

No, it's not a different nothing. Non-being as a definition of nothing squares perfectly with the definition that has been discussed so far. In fact, they're the same thing.


ETA - I mean, just look at TP's OP, where he uses the term "non-being", in the same way I'm using it.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

non-being means the lack of all existence. If there is total non-being there is absolutely no thing at all that can be described in any way.

[firstfloor]

I'm referring to total absence of any existence whatsoever.

Nothing can be said about that, I think.

[Chrawnus]

non-being means the lack of all existence. If there is total non-being there is absolutely no thing at all that can be described in any way.

Which was the way I was using the term non-being.

[robertb]

non-being means the lack of all existence. If there is total non-being there is absolutely no thing at all that can be described in any way.

Correct and such a concept may not have any relevance to any actual state in reality. As far as i can gather, positing it as such simply introduces an unsupported assumption into the premises.

[Chrawnus]

Correct and such a concept may not have any relevance to any actual state in reality. As far as i can gather, positing it as such simply introduces an unsupported assumption into the premises.

Likewise with the assumption that such a state is not even possible in principle.

[robertb]

Likewise with the assumption that such a state is not even possible in principle.

No need to prove a negative. Just point out an actual nothing and we can merrily be on our way. Sadly it seems that reality is not too forthcomming in providing one.

[Chrawnus]

No need to prove a negative. Just point out an actual nothing and we can merrily be on our way. Sadly it seems that reality is not too forthcomming in providing one.

The fact that there is something by definition means that it's not even possible for non-existence to...uhm...exist (as long as anything exists, that is) since it's defined as the lack of any existence whatsoever. When I'm speaking of non-existence I'm speaking about it only as a theoretical possibility.

[robertb]

The fact that there is something by definition means that it's not even possible for non-existence to...uhm...exist (as long as anything exists, that is) since it's defined as the lack of any existence whatsoever. When I'm speaking of non-existence I'm speaking about it only as a theoretical possibility.

Yes. I have no problem with the theoretical possibility. I have a problem when one tries to use it to support an objection.

[Jedidiah]

Actually it would be you that should elaborate. I think nothing, in an absolute sense may be nonsensical when used to describe a state in reality. You can explain why it may not be so.

I hope you do not mind me butting in. I think the point is that our universe, the only thing we know anything about is full of space, light and matter and even the vacuum is filled with energy fluctuations out of which pops very short lived virtual particles. We have no concept of a condition in which there is no space, no light and no matter.

I can very easily see that we have a problem conceiving of an absolute nothing. I have a problem conceiving of not existing, but I know that it is true that at one point id did not. I fail to see that my (or your) failure to comprehend is in anyway different. There was a time when it was assumed that space was nothing. We were wrong, but so what? Failure to understand is not evidence that what one fails to understand is wrong. I fail to understand why robertb finds absolute nothing nonsensical in reference to reality. In reference to the universe, yes -but in reference to reality no.

[robertb]

I can very easily see that we have a problem conceiving of an absolute nothing. I have a problem conceiving of not existing, but I know that it is true that at one point id did not. I fail to see that my (or your) failure to comprehend is in anyway different. There was a time when it was assumed that space was nothing. We were wrong, but so what? Failure to understand is not evidence that what one fails to understand is wrong. I fail to understand why robertb finds absolute nothing nonsensical in reference to reality. In reference to the universe, yes -but in reference to reality no.

I said that it may be nonsensical with respect to reality. It is for you to explain why it is not if you wish to posit absolute nothingness as the initial state of reality. This while dealing with how a state of absolute nothingness allows for anything at all, like for instance an eternal deity. A cake issue, I think.

[Chrawnus]

I said that it may be nonsensical with respect to reality. It is for you to explain why it is not if you wish to posit absolute nothingness as the initial state of reality. This while dealing with how a state of absolute nothingness allows for anything at all, like for instance an eternal deity. A cake issue, I think.

Well, that's the thing. We Christians do not claim that there has ever been such a thing as absolute nothing, since we believe God is eternal, and God is someone/something. What we're claiming is that God is the ultimate reality, on Whom the existence of everything else depends. I think you're sorely mistaken if you've somehow gotten the idea that Jedidiah is trying to argue that absolute nothingness has ever...uhm...existed. (And if I'm wrong about that I'm sure he'll correct me.)

I think the question is not whether there has ever been absolute nothingness, but whether such a state is even possible in theory. And I don't see why it couldn't be. What I do believe however, is that something could never come from absolute nothingness, which means that the fact that anything exists at all means that something, or someone (namely God) has always existed.

[robertb]

Well, that's the thing. We Christians do not claim that there has ever been such a thing as absolute nothing, since we believe God is eternal, and God is someone/something. What we're claiming is that God is the ultimate reality, on Whom the existence of everything else depends. I think you're sorely mistaken if you've somehow gotten the idea that Jedidiah is trying to argue that absolute nothingness has ever...uhm...existed. (And if I'm wrong about that I'm sure he'll correct me.)

I think the question is not whether there has ever been absolute nothingness, but whether such a state is even possible in theory. And I don't see why it couldn't be. What I do believe however, is that something could never come from absolute nothingness, which means that the fact that anything exists at all means that something, or someone (namely God) has always existed.

Then the objection raised in the OP regarding Krauss's definition of nothing is moot. Thanks.

[Chrawnus]

Then the objection raised in the OP regarding Krauss's definition of nothing is moot. Thanks.

No.

[robertb]

No.

Why? Perhaps you can elaborate.