Something!

Hello.

If the presence of SOMETHING causes nothing, I.e. if PRESENCE means that one has nothing, then, "in the beginning" there must have been something.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the observer

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There must have been a presence in the beginning in order to create "nothing."

 

Nothing doesn't need to be created.

 

Since the sentence leaves it ambiguous as to what "nothing" is supposed to mean here, one is thereby free to interpret it as a word indicating absolute absence of all existential affairs -- both in terms of sensible and conceptual representations of consciousness and a supposed archetype independent of the latter (i.e., mind-independent counterpart).

Similar falls out of "something" being introduced obscurely -- one is at liberty to take any being or manner of be-ing as satisfying "the unspecified thing, agency, amount, etc."

Since the sentence contains a reference to "cause" and "in the beginning", such apparently references time or a process of changes ("cause" especially seems to denote a context of presentism or possibilism -- eternalism can be left out of consideration).

Accordingly, since "time" (or whatever selected noun serving same function) is at least a concept (an item of descriptive or ideational type existence), it alone could satisfy "something". One can't appeal to "before time existed there was nothing" because that vague coordinate of "before" entails time: before (past) - now (present) - after (future).

Thus, something has always existed since "always existed" is a possibility parasitic upon time, and time even as concept would be a member of be-ing since by even utilizing any elements or coordinates of time the proposer has already reified the framework -- granted it effective be-ing which is necessary to state most if not all variations of the insane "nothing/something" species of proposal.

Humans conceived the idea of "nothing" as denoted here, so that's "something" having to output it.

The word "nothing" as absolute absence of all existential affairs cannot perversely indicate a "something" that existed before "something" or sideways to "something" or above "something" or anything else. "Nothing" is not an object or empty container or blank situation that exists or pertains. But unfortunately 99.999... percent of the population can't seem to apprehend the simplicity of that. As a result, roundabout approaches are alternatively recruited to address (yet futilely likewise never eradicating) these otiose proposals (that ceaselessly sprout hither and thither).

 

"nothing" must be perceptible as a mathematical concept of human thought process to be acknowledged to exist.

however, the current social intellectual trend of human development is currently all about the self recognizing its own right to exist.

such questions like this should become more mainstream as time goes on.

the concept of an answer to your question is
Religion
Culture
Parenting

attenuating self actualisation

most society's indoctrinate their children with one religion or another that demands the child obey the self actualization process to conform to a sense of the self from the dictators.

 

Nothing can never be created.
The best that can be created in that regard is the absence of a specific thing in what is created.
But if you create, it is never nothing.
Pretentious critical assessment notwithstanding.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To create nothing is to not create at all, which leads to a paradox.
Solution: creation of nothing is an impossibility, other than via meaningless linguistic gymnastics that, ironically, creates nothing.
Thus disproving itself and, like all good paradoxes since Douglas Adams, the nothingness created disappears in a puff of smoke.

So what has been resolved?
Nothing.
And let that be an end to it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Some excellent posts there. Thank-you for your replies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ditto man!

 

Well, if two things are one, there is nothing. If something is just allowed to be (I.e. if the being DOES NOTHING) then that being has everything. Put simply, without the presence of God (nothing) or if God simply stands by and DOES NOTHING, then that being has everything.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Would the memory of creation create a presence?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How does that follow?

How does that follow?

What do you mean by nothing in brackets here?
Do you mean 'without the presence of God there is nothing'?
Or perhaps 'without the presence of God' is tantamount to 'nothing'?

Again, how does that follow?

 

Even after all your statements, DaveC, you did not reply to my final judgement: would the memory of creation create a presence? Would there then be nothing, or would that mean there was SOMETHING?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Since the premises leading up to it make no sense, the final question also makes no sense.

And it sure doesn't help that the final question seems to have nothing to do with the previous questions - which don't mention creation or memory or presence.

But hey, this is the Free Thoughts forum, so Basketball the garden loquacious!

 

But do YOU think remembering creation would create a presence?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't even know what that means.

Would relishing the hula hoop obviate a hegemony?

 

That doesn't surprise me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Does anyone else think that remembering their creation means they were there?

 

Some people do actually remember being in the womb, but not creation. They didn't exist at the point of creation.

 

I can remember conception: "nothing lasts forever." Make of that what you will.

But does this memory create a presence there?