CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Can't existence come in multiple forms? For example, you have physical existence like a rock, person, ball, planet etc. Another form is a non-tangible existence like an idea/concept. It doesn't have a physical presence, it's only an idea in the mind. Just asking.
Actually it does have physical presence: neurons fire between synapses through the use of electrically charged neurotransmission compounds, and the signals are sent as electrical energy to other parts of the solid matter of the brain.
How could nothing exist if there existed no space in which to contain the lack of anything which would become both the space and the time within and along which the nothingness would thrust outward and forth?
There is a random generator at the core of reality and none shall defeat it.
How could nothing exist if there existed no space in which to contain the lack of anything which would become both the space and the time within and along which the nothingness would thrust outward and forth?
That's an interesting argument. I'm sure philosophers could have a debate about that.
To answer your first question about what "this garbage" is, then it is Brontoraptor again, repeating his completely irrational premise that God doesn't need explaining, but everything else does.
And nothing(ness) can achieve that verb, even though it semantically has clash with the noun 'existence'. Similar to how if you cherry pick definitions you can make the brake of a car contradict with the engine running, semantics aren't everything.
We don't say that "nothing existence" because we need to use a verb. Nothing is a noun and we are describing something that "nothing" is either doing or being.
Please stop arguing with me when you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about. It just makes me think you're an idiot.
I do have a lot of idea what I'm talking about. In a reply to SeanB, you yourself admitted that this abuse of semantics extends to us saying 'nothing does not exist' which blatantly isn't true.
No, you don't. You are a complete idiot who has deluded himself into the idea that everybody else in the world is less intelligent. You are unwell, and this is self-evident, right down to the way you find yourself unable to shut your stupid mouth when somebody corrects you about something.
One not shutting their mouth when corrected is evidence of that? Then you must be a fine candidate for the army of cerebral narcissists, oh wait, you are!
The two are incompatible. Nothing is the absence of existence. Thus, "nothing" cannot exist.
It isn't that simple. This is a question philosophers have debated for centuries. If you take everything out of the universe, is there still a universe?
That also doesn't include the obvious problem with the logic. If nothing cannot and does not exist, then one is forced to say nothing does not exist, which is both a semantic and a logical clusterfuck. If nothing does not exist, then there can hence not have been nothing in the first place.
It's not a semantic issue. Nothing is the absence of any thing. The universe is full of things. If none of those things existed, there would be no existence. But the universe does exist. And things do exist. Thus, nothing is a physical impossibility. If there is nothing, then there is no universe, no physical things, no existence.
It's not a semantic issue. Nothing is the absence of any thing. The universe is full of things. If none of those things existed, there would be no existence.
Now I'm afraid I would have to say that is a false conclusion. Einstein proposed as part of his theory of relativity that space and time (i.e. the universe) are things in and of themselves. Indeed, without this concept Einstein would not have been able to explain gravity, which is a phenomena in which space and time (i.e. "nothing", as you might say) exist in a different condition in some parts of the universe than they do in others. Given this information, it might either be the case that the universe itself came from nothing (i.e. what the OP is alluding to) or that nothing itself might be an imaginary concept.
Now I'm afraid I would have to say that is a false conclusion. Einstein proposed as part of his theory of relativity that space and time (i.e. the universe) are things in and of themselves. Indeed, without this concept Einstein would not have been able to explain gravity, which is a phenomena in which space and time (i.e. "nothing", as you might say) exist in a different condition in some parts of the universe than they do in others. Given this information, it might either be the case that the universe itself came from nothing (i.e. what the OP is alluding to) or that nothing itself might be an imaginary concept
This doesn't make sense. Space and time are things. They aren't nothing.
This doesn't make sense. Space and time are things. They aren't nothing.
That is the point of the post, mate. Did you read the chain? I'm arguing that space and time might be things in order to refute what the other guy is saying.
EDIT: Now you are really confusing me because I just noticed you're the same guy I was talking to. Your premise was this:-
The two are incompatible. Nothing is the absence of existence. Thus, "nothing" cannot exist.
Space and time are not known to have always existed. There may have been something before them. There may also have been nothing before them. If there was nothing, then it is incorrect to say that nothing did not exist because that is a double negative. You are saying the same thing as: there wasn't nothing. But there was nothing. Understand?
No energy can be created or destroyed, only changed in form. In our existence, nothing cannot exist.
The anthropic principle tells us that the idea of "nothing" is a bit meaningless in a universe of stuff and life and the power of observation. In this universe, nothing can't exist. Because if there was nothing, there wouldn't be a universe!
There is something. Him. He would be metaphysical, timeless, spaceless. The universe demands a physical cause which by definition cannot be lacking of prior history, nor can it be spaceless.
You don't think these things through properly on account of you being a moron with the IQ of spaghetti. But that is not a problem. Your toddler-like mind is cute. Well, maybe that's an overstatement.
You've presented an illogical premise. God would be the creator of time and space, so accordingly, time and space would be meaningless to Him. He is the only thing that actually exists. There is no past or future. The only tense is "is".
Your problem is that you must explain why something exists rather than nothing in a physical reality where you say there is no God. The Deist only needs to theorize that God is the only thing there actually is, and that He exists in a timeless, spaceless reality consisting of only one thing. His Consciousness.
God "would" is a hypothetical premise. You'd have to prove he exists before you assert "he is the only thing that actually exists".
The problem is that you have asked a stupid question built upon a conclusion you've already formed without any evidence for it, then tried to shift the burden of proof to someone who is asserting that things simply exist because that's the way it is.
By definition, "nothing" cannot "exist". Existence requires there to be things that ARE.
God "would" is a hypothetical premise. You'd have to prove he exists before you assert "he is the only thing that actually exists".
His premise is a total, mind-numbing contradiction of itself. He wants atheists to explain where the universe came from, but is completely unprepared to explain where God came from.
