The argument (the title of the OP) rests on the presupposition that time had no beginning. — Shawn
If time existed in nothingness, and there was a possibility of the big bang, then it becomes necessarily so that something came out from nothing. — Shawn
The reason I think this is because it seems that an absolute, philosophical ‘nothing’ would make ‘something’ impossible. — Paul Michael
Inconceivable!! — TiredThinker
‘nothing’ is impossible — Paul Michael
I’ve been going over this in my head for awhile now and I came to the conclusion that there has to be something necessarily. — Paul Michael
Not sure if I’m following this. There would be no time in nothingness, at least in how I conceive of it. Time is something. Also, wouldn’t the possibility of the big bang itself be something? — Paul Michael
took a very long time to evolve out of nothing — Athena
At the moment of the big bang there was something. — Athena
I was thinking about the "from nothing" part. Since there is no time passing in the lack of anything called 'Nothing', it's not like there was 'Nothing' and then there was something; so, I'd claim that the something that is always there is what banged. — PoeticUniverse
it seems that an absolute, philosophical ‘nothing’ would make ‘something’ impossible. — Paul Michael
it seems that an absolute, philosophical ‘nothing’ would make ‘something’ impossible. — Paul Michael
Nothing-ness" is a categorical concept – an exceptionless rule. "Nothing" (i.e. space) is, on the other hand, a hypothetical (physical) description. The distinction, while semantic, disambiguates them in our discourse — 180 Proof
Well, for starters (my two nickels), this reasoning eliminates idle, pseudo-questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which obscure far more than they clarify our discourses.... how doesknowing thatsomethingness is necessary improve our understanding or intellectual position from before? — SatmBopd
All we can do, IME, is strive creatively to ask better, more probative, questions.... "given that (it at least really looks like) there is something, what should we do next?".
Since electrons or photons sent even one at a time through two slits makes an interference pattern, they must have a spread out wave nature, indicating also that they are not pinpoints. While we refer to them as elementary particles, they, of course, are secondary, and so they are elementary only as ‘particles' — PoeticUniverse
Well, for starters (my two nickels), this reasoning eliminates idle, pseudo-questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which obscure far more than they clarify our discourses — 180 Proof
Why is there something rather than (only) nothing? :eyes:
The only 'answer' to an ultimate (categorical) Why-question which doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitates an infinite regress) is There is no ultimate (categorical) Why. Otherwise, more broadly, pseudo-questions are those which are context-free (i.e. what counts as 'a relevant and sufficient answer' is not specified) can only be begged, not answered.Why is this a pseudo question? — Raymond
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.