Being can come from non-being

[EgoDeath]

Surely the big bang came from "something," it just may not be something which we would classically consider to be "something."

I think the idea is more that a universe came from nothing as in nothing we would describe as anything.

[Alex K]

Prove me wrong...
I don't think there's a coherent deductive argument that can be made to prove this assertion false. Of course, it is far from clear what exactly is meant by being or non-being, but I wager that for any ontologically interesting definition of these terms, there is no way to show the statement to be fallacious.

So you mean like the big bang? (not the TV show but the cosmological event?) IE something/universe from nothing

If you claim that something can't come from absolutely nothing, you have to assume time was already there in order to even make a statement with the verb "coming from"

[Drich]

So you mean like the big bang? (not the TV show but the cosmological event?) IE something/universe from nothing

If you claim that something can't come from absolutely nothing, you have to assume time was already there in order to even make a statement with the verb "coming from"  

You know you are augmenting what it is I have said right?

[LastPoet]

If you claim that something can't come from absolutely nothing, you have to assume time was already there in order to even make a statement with the verb "coming from"  

You know you are augmenting what it is I have said right?

[Alex K]

If you claim that something can't come from absolutely nothing, you have to assume time was already there in order to even make a statement with the verb "coming from"  

You know you are augmenting what it is I have said right?

no, explain

[ThinkingIsThinking]

It's possible to describe impossible properties when making an argument.

If X has the property of 'not being able to be anything' then X does not exist.

We can obviously describe that which can't exist. For example "A square that has five sides ... doesn't exist." Just because I mentioned an impossible shape doesn't mean the shape is at all possible.

It's BECAUSE unbeing has the property of 'not being anything' that we're describing something that can't exist.

Nothing keeps it in the state of unbeing but only because there is no it. Because we're talking of an impossibility. It's no different to you asking "If nothing can't stop being nothing then how is it really nothing if it's BEING nothing?" well, the answer is that the idea of anything LITERALLY BEING nothing is already a contradiciton in the first place. Hence why I talk of "not being anything" rather than "being nothing" ... so there's less confusion. But it's also less confusing when you realize that all "being nothing" or "unbeing" or "being in a state of unbeing" actually means is "not being anything" and "not being in a state of being".

---

The problem, then, is that there is no ontologically interesting definition of "non-being"! ... either non-being isn't being and therefore can't exist or the only reason it isn't impossible is because you're labelling a type of being as non-being ... which isn't interesting at all--it's just a nonsensical redefinition.

I think you've pretty well nailed the ontological argument - trying to define God into existence.

Boru

Indeed. You can't define things into existence ... but you can rule out impossible things.

---

'From nothing, nothing comes' is an assertion, not a deduction. You can take the assertion that 'nothing can't stop being nothing' as axiomatic because it aligns with your intuitions; but it's not a fact

As Leibniz pointed out, there are truths of fact and truths of reasoning. This is a matter of the latter. "Nothing can't exist" is something that is true by definition .. not something we have to find empirical evidence of. If we could find evidence of it ... it wouldn't be nothing!

"Nothing" is precisely that which doesn't exist or refer to anything.

Presuppose that there was at some point 'not anything'.

To say that there was ever at some point 'not anything' is already a contradiction in terms. There can't be non-being. It's like saying "Suppose at some point bachelors were married". You saying that what I'm saying is "just an assertion" is like saying that when I say "No Bachelors are married" it is "just an assertion."

No matter, no energy, no time, no space.

And no anything ... hence you're not talking about anything existent.

The whole point of non-being is that it can't be.

For it to 'stay nothing' that state of affairs would have to be stable.

What state of affairs? There ISN'T a state of affairs. A state of affairs is something. I already addressed this in my previous response to you. There is no such thing as 'a state of nothing' because a state is something. I pointed out that it's clear if I say 'not anything' in order to be clear what is meant by 'nothing' ... but you've slipped back into talking of nothing as if it's something again.,

You can only seem to make nothingness possible by redefining it so it's not nothingness. That's the point.

I don't think it would have been, because with no time, there can be no continuation of any given state of affairs.

Non-being doesn't have to stay in a state of non-being because non-being is not a state. It doesn't have to continue being anything because it isn't anything. The whole point is that it can't exist so why are you still talking about it like it's something rather than nothing? The whole point is that it isn't something. There is no it.

That said, I don't think there was ever a state of 'true, absolute nothingness' because the idea of it is incoherent; I think we agree on that point. It's like your five-sided square.

I know there was never a state of nothingness because it is indeed as incoherent as a five-sided square. The idea of there being non-being is exactly as incoherent as there being a four-sided shape that has five sides.

[Mister Agenda]

It is not that nonbeing is impossible that we disagree on, ThinkingisThinking. I agree that it's impossible and was clear on that point. It's that if it were possible, it would not necessarily follow that nothing can proceed from it. That something exists is a brute fact, that there ever was 'absolute nothingness' is not possible, but even if it were, it would still not mean that a supernatural explanation is necessary to explain why there is something now.

If a five-pointed square existed, it would have five points, not some other number of points, that necessarily follows from the concept 'five-pointed square', even though it's a contradiction in terms. If there was only nonbeing, it would have no time. We should be able to talk about imaginary impossible things without having to constantly rehash the point that they're not possible. Hypotheticals are an important part of reasoning (not that my point is that important, in my opinion it wasn't important enough to bother with rebutting).

[WinterHold]

There is an argument and it's pretty simple..
Here goes: "how do you build such an opinion in total ignoring of different dimensions that creation in it does not have a clear definition yet?".

Objects can exist in two places at the same time if you managed to see the minimized version of objects. How can you trust that your physics would work in other dimensions?

If we stepped into another dimension or even began to see things "differently" then everything you know, then we can rule out your concept

In a higher dimension even the word "being" and "non-being" would be obsolete.

[Mister Agenda]

Translation?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sigh more people claiming some cannot come from nothing .A tiresome unproven claim 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/468

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14486