God is so quiet

[LadyForCamus]

This is simply not true at all.   Quite the opposite, in fact.  The universe existing necessarily is the only logical explanation, IMO. 


correct.


We could conceive of that world, sure.  But it wouldn’t be nothing.  Nothing cannot “be”, or, “have been” any type of world, or any kind of thing, lol.  Absolute nothingness is a logically incoherent concept, try as we might.  Any “state of affairs” would not be nothing.  It would be some kind of state...with affairs.  ‘Absolute nothing’, is simply an expression of the human mind attempting to comprehend, ‘not any of this’. 

By admitting that we could logically conceive of both a possible world where we have our universe (obviously) and a possible world where it did not exist means precisely that the universe does not 'necessarily' exist.

Perhaps I misspoke.  When I said universe, what I meant, and what I should have said, was existence.  No, we cannot conceive of a world of non-existence.  That is logically incoherent.  We try, but as soon as we employ language to describe what non-existence is, we are logically refuting our own efforts.  As I said before, non-existence, by definition, is not anything, and cannot be anything, including a world.  Becuase a world, Ofc, would be a thing.  😏

We may instinctively attempt to conceive of “nothing” as a way to maintain logical continuity within this ‘cause and effect’ type of experience we’re used to, but “nothing”, described as any kind of thing, is by definition something, not nothing. And, non-existence, by definition, cannot exist.  

Ya’ll get any of that?  😝

In philosophy, 'nothing' (along with nobody, nowhere, none, etc.) are terms of universal negation. All you are doing is playing games with a word that grammatically is a pronoun and making it into a noun.

I’m not playing any kind of game.  I’m using simple, irrefutable logic.  Sorry you don’t like it.  You can call ‘nothing’ bananas if it pleases you.  My point still stands.  There is no logical alternative to existence. Existence exists necessarily, by its very definition.

If I had nothing for lunch today, I do not mean that I ate something and it was nothing. If I saw nobody in the office, I do not mean I saw somebody called nobody.

Not eating lunch and seeing people at work are pretty piss poor, and painfully inadequate comparisons to existence versus non-existence, don’t you think?  It seems to me, that you haven’t decided exactly what you mean when you say, “nothing”.

You are propagating a silly argument that only exists in the world of the atheist echo chamber.

If it’s silly, then refute it.  And btw, I did not come by this via other atheists.  I am capable of thinking for myself, thanks.

Go ahead, find a serious philosopher who has written on the somethingness of nothingness.

Huh?  That’s my whole point.  Nothing cannot be something.  So you agree?  Or, are you not talking about actual nothing?  Are you talking about a Lawrence Krauss type of nothing? Because, that is not, no things.