(April 8, 2011 at 2:02 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:theVOID Wrote:It doesn't exist, might not even be possible, certainly isn't conceivable.
Sae is letting intuitions get in the way.
It does exist, is therefore not only possible but real, and I agree that it is not conceivable.
Yes... intuitions is what it is
Nothing, the absence of things, exists right now? Where?
You should stop relying on intuitions, like, now...
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2946
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2938
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14998
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14609
Void Wrote:Reference: "No, everything is one thing. The universe is one. Adding zero to this does not change it. And nothing is also a thing, so calling it zero is kinda funny really."
Whaaaaaat????
Everything is not a thing, it is a concept of the totality of all things, just like nothing is a concept of a complete absence of any things. How are many things just one thing? Are 14 things one thing? What if there are only 14 things, are they now 1 thing? How does that even work?
Quote:I agree that everything is the sum of all things. I do not believe the universe is everything. There is undeniably nothing outside of the universe. Hehe, i did it again. It's actually funny to me ^_^
Quote:Nothing is a thing, it is the absence of things. Let's look at that again... nothing is the absence of things. I agree that nothing contains no things. Hence the point of the thing in the first place?
Nothing neither contains nor IS a thing. The absence of energy is not energy, the absence of things is not a thing!
What exactly do you define a "thing" as?
Quote:Circles are fun... you don't need to be all arrogant like "until you agree", especially when the exact opposite could be said of you.
Sure, if I'm wrong then make a case, don't just assert that the absence of things is a thing (a statement that is nonsense). If you have an absence of things (0t) you do not have 1t! 0=/= 1 =/= 1+1+1...
Quote:Regardless, I do not believe it is a circle. It is quite clearcut to me, zero confusion even. Hence it's like reading farce when so many of you tell me otherwise. No doubt you have the same towards me. Only you lot seem confused
Your contention is literally nonsense.
Quote:Everything minus everything... is still everything. And it is also nothing.
That's like labling an empty Pen an "every sheep", it's not, it's "no sheep".
And even if we agreed, Everything, in a reality where there are things, is NOT no things. Propose a non-reality with no things and the sum of those non-things is nothing, you could just a tiny bit maybe not look like a fool for calling that "everything" but that still implies the existence of things, so it still doesn't work.
Quote:One thing is everything, and that one thing is nothing. Nothing is everything, everything is nothing. But only in that example. Everything is not nothing in non-equivilent examples. Oh, and nothing is everything except everything, always.
Everything means the sum of all things, to a non-reality the word is not applicable, not even when the non-reality is hypothetical. To say "everything" you necessarily need things to talk about, otherwise you are just stringing words together, much in the same way "square circle" sounds like it might be a thing but is really just nonsense.
Quote:Funnily enough, I already have it in my head that nothing = no things. However, I also understand that it is a thing. Not multiple things, mind. Just one.
No things means no things at all, not one, not 14, not a trillion.
You are saying that "nothing" = "no things" = "0 things" = "1 thing"!
.
