Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything.
Nice one! (At the risk of sounding stupid: I take that it's a joke?)
Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is molded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Confusion surrounds our abstractions;
Because we are ignorant
We may find answers
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.
If we are the product of some cosmic crepitation would anyone have heard the noise?
I'm going to assume/hope that you are joking.
On the off chance that you're not, run your post through my "exercise of nothing semantics". In so doing, you produce: "'everything' didn't come from anything".
Well, this thread has slipped horribly off topic! [Runs around in circles. Screams and shouts.]
The topic was nothing, just ignore it. It'll go away. :0)
My statement was not a joke, but feel free to read it as that.
Take anything in the universe - one can always ask of it "where
does that come from?" And if the answer was found to be something
else, the good philosopher would then ask of that, "where does that
come from?" Ad infinitum.
The only answer that can stop this question from being asked an
infinite number of times is : NOTHING.
Everything came from nothing since nothing is the only "thing" that doesn't come from anything.
"Nothing" is not a "thing", as you put it. Please, look at the first post of the thread, "An Exercise in Nothing Semantics".
Put it in "quotes" if it will make you feel better but I think my meaning was clear- I don't wish for this debate to degrade into one on semantics.
First of all, a semantic discussion is not degratory, merely basic.
Secondly, I put it in quotes because to leave it without quotes is to imply that it is something, when this is a logical contradiction.
Lastly, your point was clear, and clearly wrong. If you run it through the "exercise" it becomes "'everything' (or "the universe") didn't come from anything" and is thus correct. But if you say that there was a state, called "nothing", that gave birth to "everything" you are wrong, because "nothing" is not a state or a thing.
I had put the word "thing" in quotes if you had not noticed since I had anticipated different interprations of the meaning "thing".
I don't understand how you can twist the meaning of my statement and then claim that it is wrong? Of course it is wrong if you change the meaning to what YOU want it to mean. In my statement, I was making a very simple claim: the question of origin can only be answered finally by answering that everything comes from nothing. But I had assumed the most widely accepted meaning of the words "nothing" , "thing", "everything", "comes", "because", "it", "from", "only", "the", and "doesn't", instead of your more esoteric definitions.
Sorry, philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, not meaningless answers. Your logic is self-referential and self-contradictory, in other words, paradoxical. Something and nothing axiomatically refer to each other. Often the wisest thing to do is simply admit our ignorance and apparent lack of ability to rectify this ignorance so that we can move on to more productive things.
This is essentially what Aristotle did with Zeno's reductio ad absurdum or what I shall refer to here as the “backdoor” argument. Rather than directly proving something, you sneak in the backdoor and prove the alternatives are patently ridiculous. For example, if I wish to prove I exist using this backdoor approach, I could first show how absurd it is for me to assert I do not exist. How could I possibly insist I do not exist, unless I actually do exist?
Zeno used this kind of argumentative technique to demonstrate that any possible explanation for existence leads to a paradox, ad absurdium that is. For hundreds of years foolish philosophers challanged his arguments and philosophy to no avail. He used this to justiify his own paradoxical philosophy was no better or worse than any other and, as a result, collected a rather impressive following of argumentative young men who wished to make others look foolish.
Aristotle put a stop to this nonsense by turning this argument around and applying Zeno's own backdoor approach to logic itself. What he showed was that unless we assume everything is either true or false any argument we put forward will lead to a paradox. Thus, if you are going to argue logically that existence comes from nothing you are not inviting an end to the debate, but a continuation of it. Better to just admit we don't know imo.
You write very poetic prose but are you denying that nothing is the absence of anything, and therefore is the only "thing" that need not have a cause?
It is always possible to ask about the origin of something, ad infinitum. Anything that has substance that you claim to be the origin, I can always think of something coming before. The only "thing" in which the question "where does this come from" leads to an absolute and irrefutable answer is "NOTHING".
And if Nothing is the only thing imaginable that need not a cause, it can be said to be the first cause. Everything came from nothing.
As I have already pointed out, we could argue this ad infinitum. I will say this once, just as clearly as I can:
If nothing is nothing, then it cannot be the cause of something!
That's called proof by assertion, I think. How do you know something can't come from nothing? We have never observed nothing. But only nothing did not come from anything so it is the only answer that gives finality to the question of origin.
Its not proof by assertion, again this is a paradox. Nothing cannot be a cause because then it would be something. Go ahead, argue all you want, I refuse to argue anymore with such irrational nonsense.
'Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.'
I've come to the conclusion that there was always something.
That presents yet another paradox. To say something is infinite is to say it has no limit, but this is a self-contradictory and self-referential statement. It places the limit on itself that there is no limit.
I never said it was a 'good' conclusion. It just happened to be the point I had got to when I stopped thinking.
I've not read anything else. But this is nonsense reasoning.
How can "no limits" be a limit? A limit to what? Name me one thing that a no-limits being is limited to be.
Make philosophy your slave. Don't be a slave to a particular philosophy.
No, that is only if you assumed something always has to be caused by something. Something that is caused by nothing does not make the nothing a something. Nothing is the natural origin for all things since there is nothing before nothing.
ah huh... so you are saying that....
0 => 0
0 => a
You are aware of the laws of logic aren't you?
I suspect like LG, s/he's just talking rhetorical nonsense AG. Every philosophy doesn't have to be logical. :0)
Separate names with a comma.