Is absolute 'nothing' really possible and/or coherent?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The Universe = nothing. According to Stephen Hawking anyway - there is the same amount of anti matter in the universe as matter, therefore the mass of the universe is nothing. So actually everything is nothing.

It also gets around the xtian "how can something come from nothing" argument, because everything is nothing anyway!

Quite the brain bender.

Fascinating. I'm not sure if theist would except that as "nothing" though.

So anyway...
Basically, if what I understand is correct, "nothing" as used in modern cosmological arguments such as Craig's Kalam arguments, is nonsense, right? When they say "something cannot come from nothing" they might as well be saying "something cannot come from frumpwaddlelanny." I also think they might be falsely assuming that atheists believe that the universe came from the same sort of "nothing" that theists think "nothing" as being. So when theists say that atheists think the universe came from "nothing" they're putting in their own unique definition of "nothing" and misrepresenting their opponents.

[Phil]

The Universe = nothing. According to Stephen Hawking anyway - there is the same amount of anti matter in the universe as matter, therefore the mass of the universe is nothing. So actually everything is nothing.

It also gets around the xtian "how can something come from nothing" argument, because everything is nothing anyway!

Quite the brain bender.

You got a citation for this? If there wasn't a small asymmetry between antimatter and matter, there would be no "stuff" and the universe would be empty.

[Jackalope]

The Universe = nothing. According to Stephen Hawking anyway - there is the same amount of anti matter in the universe as matter, therefore the mass of the universe is nothing. So actually everything is nothing.

It also gets around the xtian "how can something come from nothing" argument, because everything is nothing anyway!

Quite the brain bender.

You got a citation for this? If there wasn't a small asymmetry between antimatter and matter, there would be no "stuff" and the universe would be empty.

Indeed. This is one of the great unanswered questions of physics. Perhaps N&C is thinking about something else, such as the theory that symmetry was expected. So far as we can tell, it didn't occur, or we would not be here to ponder the question. Unless there are isolated regions of antimatter in the universe, which has been determined to be unlikely, at least within the detectable horizon.

[Phil]

Nothing is an impossibility as one poster pointed out because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not because of electrons as he said but because of two other complimentary values. Those are the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If one is known as we know the energy density to be zero (in nothing), the rate of change of the energy density must be non-zero (not nothing).

BTW, the OP asked about the Kaalam Cosmological Argument. Truth be told, the KCA is faulty because of it's premise. No need to examine it any further than that. The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Instead of showing how that premise is faulty, just tell me what causes Beta decay.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Nothing is an impossibility as one poster pointed out because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not because of electrons as he said but because of two other complimentary values. Those are the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If one is known as we know the energy density to be zero (in nothing), the rate of change of the energy density must be non-zero (not nothing).

BTW, the OP asked about the Kaalam Cosmological Argument. Truth be told, the KCA is faulty because of it's premise. No need to examine it any further than that. The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Instead of showing how that premise is faulty, just tell me what causes Beta decay.

Here's your much awaited reply. You seem to have assumed that I'm a Christian/theist. I'm not. I'm close to being an atheist in fact. I thought that would be clear from all the posts I've made this week (especially with my "deconversion" post). The reason I never replied is because I didn't find what you said disagreeable. I'm inclined to agree with it in fact. And it didn't seem like it requested any response from me either. There are no questions directed to me nor any criticisms with what I said. Friendly fire!

[The Grand Nudger]

What does that entail? "Almost" not believing?

[Phil]

Nothing is an impossibility as one poster pointed out because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not because of electrons as he said but because of two other complimentary values. Those are the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If one is known as we know the energy density to be zero (in nothing), the rate of change of the energy density must be non-zero (not nothing).

BTW, the OP asked about the Kaalam Cosmological Argument. Truth be told, the KCA is faulty because of it's premise. No need to examine it any further than that. The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Instead of showing how that premise is faulty, just tell me what causes Beta decay.

Here's your much awaited reply. You seem to have assumed that I'm a Christian/theist. I'm not. I'm close to being an atheist in fact. I thought that would be clear from all the posts I've made this week (especially with my "deconversion" post). The reason I never replied is because I didn't find what you said disagreeable. I'm inclined to agree with it in fact. And it didn't seem like it requested any response from me either. There are no questions directed to me nor any criticisms with what I said. Friendly fire!

How from my reply do I assume you're a Christian/theist? Because of that accusation I now know you're an idiot.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

What does that entail? "Almost" not believing?

Do you want me to make up more statistics about my doubts?

---

Nothing is an impossibility as one poster pointed out because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not because of electrons as he said but because of two other complimentary values. Those are the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If one is known as we know the energy density to be zero (in nothing), the rate of change of the energy density must be non-zero (not nothing).

BTW, the OP asked about the Kaalam Cosmological Argument. Truth be told, the KCA is faulty because of it's premise. No need to examine it any further than that. The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Instead of showing how that premise is faulty, just tell me what causes Beta decay.

Here's your much awaited reply. You seem to have assumed that I'm a Christian/theist. I'm not. I'm close to being an atheist in fact. I thought that would be clear from all the posts I've made this week (especially with my "deconversion" post). The reason I never replied is because I didn't find what you said disagreeable. I'm inclined to agree with it in fact. And it didn't seem like it requested any response from me either. There are no questions directed to me nor any criticisms with what I said. Friendly fire!

How from my reply do I assume you're a Christian/theist? Because of that accusation I now know you're an idiot.

Ok, you're just trolling now. I was hopeful you weren't.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol, no, no, I was just curious as to how someone might almost not believe in something, or almost believe in something, for that matter. It's a common enough phrase ie "Hell, I almost believe that he.." or "hell, I almost can't believe that he" but it seems a strange place to find one's self in with regards to belief beyond idomatic phrases.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Lol, no, no, I was just curious as to how someone might almost not believe in something, or almost believe in something, for that matter. It's a common enough phrase ie "Hell, I almost believe that he.." or "hell, I almost can't believe that he" but it seems a strange place to find one's self in with regards to belief beyond idomatic phrases.

I'm really not sure. I'm not convinced that God exists or that he doesn't. I don't think I'm agnostic either because I think the answer could be found. I just don't want to make any hasty judgements on the matter until I'm sure.