Being cannot come from non-being. Existence cannot come from non-existence. Reality cannot come from Non-reality. Something cannot come from Nothing. The law of cause and effect is the most universal law of all laws known. That is something that can be inferred by the explicit nature of non-being. It is the absence of anything. Therefore, the claim: Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing, stands by its own and does not require any further proof or demonstration.
Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.
ex nihilo nihil fit
"Nothingness" is a philosophical term that denotes the general state of nonexistence
Nothing comes from nothing (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides. It is associated with ancient Greek cosmology, such as is presented not just in the works of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every internal system—there is no break in-between a world that did not exist and one that did, since it could not be created ex nihilo in the first place.
Nothing can be made from nothing—once we see that's so, Already we are on the way to what we want to know.
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 1.148–156
Argument: The argument that something cannot come into existence from absolutely no thing. is an assertion, you need to demonstrate this, I don't know for a fact that something cannot come from nothing. You assert without demonstrating that something cannot come from nothing, how do you know this? How can we test this?
Response: Absolutely nothing, as the absence of anything, can't do something. It has no potentialities, it is the contrary of being: Non-being. 0 x 0 = 0. That is inductive reasoning which does not require empirical demonstration and testing. Nothing has no ontological value to be taken seriously as a possible explanation of anything, since, its the absence of any being, it cannot produce being. This is obviously true, self evident, and can be taken for granted without the need to be demonstrated.
It's easy to demonstrate that everything comes from something (and it does!). I can demonstrate you that nothing can't produce anything simply by giving you an empty box and telling you to wait 50 years to see if anything is born out of nothing; there's your demonstration for you!
If there is is no logical contradiction contained within the concept of 'nothing' then it could, in principles, and in fact, exist. The state of non-being could be. But then , we would not be here to talk about non-being. And since we ARE here, non-being has never been, but being has always been. In time, and in eternity. An eternal being without beginning, and without end, exists. Fits perfectly with the one that named himself " I AM". I don't know of any other deity calling himself " I AM". That should be telling.
The Law of Cause and Effect is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Every material effect must have an adequate cause.
Being - can do something
Non-being - can't do something
Being can create being
Non-being can't create being
Something can do something
Nothing can't do something
Causes can cause things
No causes can't cause things
Something can exist somewhere
Nothing can't exist somewhere
Something can be sometimes
Absolutely nothing can't be sometimes
Existence can create existence
Non-existence can't create existence
Consciousness can create consciousness
Non-consciousness can't create consciousness
If there was nothing, there would still be nothing.
Since there IS something, there must always have been something.
Something cannot come out of nothing.
Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle. With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss. 1
So, what is nothingness anyway?
If nothingness exists, only then is existence truly absurd. It is definable only by comparison: nothing is the opposite of anything. No matter, no dimensions, no space, no thought, no scale, no direction, no speed, no time and, most important: nothing to be defined exists in nothingness. If, say, before the Big Bang there was nothing, it can only mean that nothingness has a property which makes is create a Big Bang but that is contradictory because there is no something in nothing to create anything from. We need to be clear on nothing. Nothing is no thing. Nothing is not emptiness, because emptiness contains the borders of itself. To define something as empty you need to explicitly define a cavity. Nothing is not absence, because absence is limited by its object, while nothingness is unlimited. In absence only the named absent is not. In nothingness nothing is. Nothingness is not void because void contains space. Nothing contains nothing, not even empty space. Empty space, aside from the fact it isn’t really empty, is still something, space, so at least one degree removed from nothing. Nothingness is dimensionless too simply because there is no space. No space, no dimensions. Death is not nothingness either. Death is non-existence, for both us and all other living things all over this universe. Unless we’re alone, in the entire infinite universe, which raises a lot of hope. But hope always bears disillusionment, so let’s not hope 2 Infinity is far more plausible than nothingness So, now the big question, if there has always been something from which everything happened, what is it?
“What is the sense of ‘possibility’ if the universe began to exist, and must have had a cause?”
The answer is “metaphysical possibility.” This is a modality in between physical possibility and strict logical possibility and is often called “broad logical possibility” by contemporary philosophers. To illustrate, it is strictly logically possible that “The Prime Minister is a prime number” (there is no logical contradiction here); but, notwithstanding, such a thing is metaphysically impossible (incapable of actualization). There are all sorts of truths—like “Everything that has a shape has a size,” “Nothing can be red all over and green all over,” “No event precedes itself,” etc.—which are not strictly logically necessary but are, I think, metaphysically necessary. I think that the first premiss of the kalam argument is a metaphysically necessary truth. 3
Here, Krauss goes to the point to claim that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could have created the universe. Thats the suicide of reason and logic
The net energy of the universe is zero
Last edited by Admin on Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:57 pm; edited 4 times in total