Can something come from nothing

[Neo-Scholastic]

The problem with Aquaman's arguments, and any logical arguments in place of evidence, is that they are unfalsifiable. How exactly could we tell if we were in a reality where these things didn't apply? I never get an answer to this. At least, not a sane one. If there's no way of telling the difference, then it's just an assumption.

You say all claims must be empirically falsifiable except your claim that all claims must be empirically falsifiable. It's a circular position. Without any justification you will only accept theories justified by the tools of natural science and only ask the type of questions those tools can answer and surprise surprise only find natural theories. That is your tacit ontology coming through and it's a self-defeating one. Natural science cannot explain why natural science works. Natural science can investigate beings but not being-as-such. Talk about never providing an answer! You do realize, don't you, that Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, the man who came up with the falsifiable criteria for natural science, was a theist? Are you going to tell me that you know better than Popper when and how it is appropriate to apply the falsification criteria?

The fact is that some ontological positions are logically incoherent, like materialism, and others are not. Your aversion to metaphysics seems more than incurious but ideological. Can't let God slip in the door! No. No. Let's block or dismiss all the other components for evaluating theories, criteria like coherence, explanatory power, and comprehensiveness. I accept the best available ontology.

Maybe someday you'd like to have an actual formal debate about the 5W because I would relish the opportunity to wipe the floor with all the staw men in your last post.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For example:

Fallacy of composition. Everything in my bag is blue; it doesn't mean my bag is also blue.

You can't make something blue using only red LEGOs. Likewise, you can't make something out of a whole lot of nothing (which is pretty much all you have, Rob).

[pocaracas]

For example:

Fallacy of composition. Everything in my bag is blue; it doesn't mean my bag is also blue.

You can't make something blue using only red LEGOs. Likewise, you can't make something out of a whole lot of nothing (which is pretty much all you have, Rob).

What if the philosophical nothing was never a reality?
Sorry, faulty wording, as nothing would preclude time itself from existing.

But what if time and space have existed for a past infinite? A past beyond the big bang, beyond the known barrier to information about that past...? A past unknown and, as far as we can tell nowadays, unknowable.

[robvalue]

For example:

Fallacy of composition. Everything in my bag is blue; it doesn't mean my bag is also blue.

You can't make something blue using only red LEGOs. Likewise, you can't make something out of a whole lot of nothing (which is pretty much all you have, Rob).

You don't understand the fallacy of composition? It's not something I made up. Go look it up for yourself. You don't seem to grasp logical fallacies in general.

You just demonstrated that properties sometimes carry over from the parts to the whole. Sometimes is not always.

You are literally claiming to know more about reality than all of the top scientists combined. Do you think that is reasonable?

[Neo-Scholastic]

For example:
You can't make something blue using only red LEGOs. Likewise, you can't make something out of a whole lot of nothing (which is pretty much all you have, Rob).

What if the philosophical nothing was never a reality?

That's kind of the point. What I think you mean is this: what if philosophical nothing was impossible. That's a good question and definitely worth pondering. In the meantime, I would say that the fact that there is something (now) prevents there from being nothing. The question remains why is there something (now).

But what if time and space have existed for a past infinite? A past beyond the big bang, beyond the known barrier to information about that past...? A past unknown and, as far as we can tell nowadays, unknowable.

That's entirely possible. Nothing stops accidental sequences from regressing into infinity.
[/quote]

For example:
You can't make something blue using only red LEGOs. Likewise, you can't make something out of a whole lot of nothing...

You don't understand the fallacy of composition? It's not something I made up. Go look it up for yourself. You don't seem to grasp logical fallacies in general.

You just demonstrated that properties sometimes carry over from the parts to the whole. Sometimes is not always.

You are literally claiming to know more about reality than all of the top scientists combined. Do you think that is reasonable?

Oh, now I see! if x=0+0+0+0... x doesn't have to be 0. You are so logical, Rob! How did I not see that! :-)

"Nothin' plus nothin' leaves nothin' / Ya gotta have something if you wanna be with me." Billy Preston seems a lot more reasonable than your "top scientists".

[pocaracas]

What if the philosophical nothing was never a reality?

That's kind of the point. What I think you mean is this: what if philosophical nothing was impossible. That's a good question and definitely worth pondering. In the meantime, I would say that the fact that there is something (now) prevents there from being nothing. The question remains why is there something (now).

No, the question can't be that... at least not with the "now" attached.
At any time, there is, at least, time. And time is manifestly not nothing.

With out the "now" detail, "why is there anything at all?" may be a too ambitious question, as we clearly don't have the necessary skill to answer it satisfactorily.
I'd prefer to first tackle the big bang event, if space-time exists beyond the Universe and how far it extends and then we may be in a better position to answer that first question.

[Cyberman]

The question is was there ever a nothing from which to 'create' something?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's kind of the point. What I think you mean is this: what if philosophical nothing was impossible. That's a good question and definitely worth pondering. In the meantime, I would say that the fact that there is something (now) prevents there from being nothing. The question remains why is there something (now).

No, the question can't be that... at least not with the "now" attached.
At any time, there is, at least, time. And time is manifestly not nothing.

With out the "now" detail, "why is there anything at all?" may be a too ambitious question, as we clearly don't have the necessary skill to answer it satisfactorily.
I'd prefer to first tackle the big bang event, if space-time exists beyond the Universe and how far it extends and then we may be in a better position to answer that first question.

I used the qualifier 'now' because the 3W is about the ability of things to sustain their own existence, i.e. creation is the constant coming into being.

[Edwardo Piet]

Absolute nonexistence, literally nothing, is not possible.

Can something come from nothing? No. Is God irrelevant? Yes.

Also time has always existed because there is by definition no time before time . "Always"= "at all times". Time has certainly existed at all times

There was never a time before time. Nor was there a space outside space itself

The point is... whatever sort of existence there was at the beginning, before the big bang... at the very beginning of time (which itself never began, it was its own starting point)..... it certainly wasn't God because that's retarded. What the fuck would a superintelligence be doing at the beginning of time and the universe? No, that's retarded. Stop that theists. Stop that.

[pocaracas]

No, the question can't be that... at least not with the "now" attached.
At any time, there is, at least, time. And time is manifestly not nothing.

With out the "now" detail, "why is there anything at all?" may be a too ambitious question, as we clearly don't have the necessary skill to answer it satisfactorily.
I'd prefer to first tackle the big bang event, if space-time exists beyond the Universe and how far it extends and then we may be in a better position to answer that first question.

I used the qualifier 'now' because the 3W is about the ability of things to sustain their own existence, i.e. creation is the constant coming into being.

Well then, the question is malformed.
For as long as there is time, there is never nothing.

You may ask "Why is there matter and energy, rather than just plain empty space-time?", but that is a different question.
Space-time is not nothing.... it is something.
And it is something that has been proven to actually generate energy and matter, so that problem has been solved for us a few decades ago.


But it seems like you are looking into the fact that this energy and matter retain their existence within this space-time framework. As time goes on, things remain - there's a continuity - energy and matter are conserved (for the most part)...
Why is energy conserved? I don't know... I'd much rather ask "How is energy conserved?" The 'Why' implies a reason, some intellect that thought about it and decided it to be so... when you ask that 'why' question, you are, in essence, poisoning the well.
For energy to not be conserved, one would have to find a mechanism for energy to be lost.... to be reclaimed by the quantum foam... but no such mechanism has been discovered, yet (as far as I know). Until then, the observation is that energy is conserved. How? Through the absence of energy sinks.
What property of space-time inhibits the existence of such energy sinks? I don't know.... that is way beyond my pay-grade. And (as far as I know) no one can answer that.... at least, yet.