downbeatplumb Wrote:'Nothing' is a description of an abscence of something, the concept of nothing exists, but if that is what your are putting as a measure of existance then so does god and the flying spaghetti monster.
This is a poor meaure of existance and I reject it.
But do absences of something exist or not? If they do then by definition nothing must exist... as only a descriptor of what it is not... in the same sense that atheism only exists in the sense that it is not theism. Is nothing a thing? No. Does it exist? Whyever would it not? Why could there be no 'vacuum'... no 'voids'?
Gods and flying spaghetti monsters truly might exist though... i certainly see no reason to believe in their existences as more than concepts... but the cosmos need not conform to my expectations of it. If the illogical can exist (in underlying physics, regardless that it can demonstrably exist in people)... then we likely have no way to understand what goes on 'within' it. Under such conditions the FSM and gods could perhaps easily exist.
Nothing, on the other hand, is somewhat more demonstrable. Would you say there is an everything? Of course you would (right? 0.o). Does this everything occupy limited (if expanding) 'space'? If so... what is beyond it? Absolutely nothing. Ergo... nothing exists. Does everything include voids that are only so in their not being things (and as such, not occupy limited 'space')? Then there are voids of things within everything. Ergo... nothing exists.
^ That last counterpoint is a bit better formulated than the others imo... someone 'annihilate' it for me!
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
