(February 8, 2018 at 9:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(February 8, 2018 at 7:58 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are overthinking this. What if there was no potential for existence? Is that conceivable?
Nothing. Not anything. Existence did not happen. There is nothing mysterious about this concept. Just...nothing at all.
Steve, do you realize that just by saying, ‘nothing is’, as in: ‘nothing is an alternative to something’, or that ‘nothing could have been’, you’re already talking about nothing as though it were, in fact, something? I think you’re the one overthinking it. As soon as you attempt to conceptualize nothing as an alternative, you’ve already screwed the pooch, because ‘nothing’ cannot be an alternative. It can’t be anything. I would say with reasonable certainty that existence did NOT happen. That’s my entire argument: existence has always existed, because that’s what existence is, and what it does. There is no such possible thing as nothing. Not even in concept.
Dean Rickles says it more perfectly than I:
‘What kind of possible world could instantiate there being nothing?’
Okay, I finally had time to listen to the video. I understand your point now. My confusion came in from you and Grandizer moving from the Universe being a necessary entity to the concept of 'existence' and I did not understand the pivot.
Alright, that makes sense. But as Dean Rickles clearly said (7:00) this reasoning does not apply to concrete objects. So, the universe does not necessarily exist. What point do you think you can make with the fact that the concept of existence must exist in all possible worlds?
