Universe From Nothing: God Created from "Nothing" - Science + Philosophy brings down another creation argument

[_LiveFree_]

I'm not a physicist, nor a theologian. (or a philosopher for that matter) I'm just a dude with free time. 

/disclaimer

 

I've been YouTubing physicist Lawrence Krauss and his lectures/debates about how the universe came into being out of "nothing". There was a debate between him and theologian William Lane Craig. One of the things that Craig kept harping on was the definition of "nothing". While watching that debate, I found myself agreeing with Craig. This led me to realize that either Krauss was wrong, or I just didn't understand what he meant by "nothing". Fast forward through many of his lectures and debates and I think I finally understand what the problem is and why he runs into so much resistance when trying to convince others about the universe arising from "nothing". 

 

Indeed, the problem is in the definition of the word "nothing", which is simply "not anything". A synonym that is much more revealing is the word "void" which is defined as "being without something specified". Now up until very recently in the history of the human race, we have understood the "void" of space to contain absolutely no matter or energy. If you wanted an empirical example of what "nothing" and "void" were, all you had to do was create a vacuum in space. And of course, the vacuum of space happened naturally and made up most of the universe. 

 

The creation myth says that God created the universe from nothing, out of the void. Iron age myth makers would look at an empty sack, empty cup, or up in the sky and say there is nothing in there. They would have a concept of what nothing actually is. Therefore, they could imagine "a great void". As mankind became more technologically advanced we began to understand that while a sack or cup may appear to be empty, in fact there are billions of microscopic particles dancing about inside them; and the sky we now know to be an atmosphere full of all kinds of particles. The concept of "nothing" arose out of the human mind's inability to directly experience something that appeared to not be there. In other words, "if I can't physically see it, it's not there. PEEK-A-BOO!" 

 

The way that scientific advancement played out, though, created an overlap between what we previously believed to be empty to a new concept of empty. No longer was the glass empty or the atmosphere empty, outer space was empty. Then later, the space between electrons and the nucleus of an atom was empty. As long as the concept of nothing had empirical evidence to show that nothing was a valid concept, then theologians would always be able to claim that before the universe there was nothing, with full confidence that "nothing" was something that could be fully understood by even the most mentally challenged individual. 

 

Enter quantum mechanics. 

 

We now understand that all of the visible matter/energy in the universe makes up about 1% of the total matter/energy in the universe. If you are to look at the vacuum of space, where we once thought we could look into nothing, we now understand theoretically and empirically that there are "ghost particles" popping in and out of existence. The void of space is not void. And since space is everywhere, there is no such thing as "nothing" or a "void". Everywhere in the universe, there is something. Nowhere in the universe can you find an true example of "nothing".

 

What does this do to the creation myth "God created the universe from nothing"? Well, it relegates this to the category of creating an alternate dimension to define God. 

 

"nothing true can be said about our reality, because another reality may exist where truth equals falsehood." (Against the Gods? pg20 describing the agnostic argument)

 

The truth about our reality is that it is completely full. We are fish becoming aware of the water. 

 

The human race has had a concept of what "nothing" is for so long that it seems obvious that it is a valid concept. Is the glass half empty of half full? It's always full! It is either full up on beer or it contains half beer and half atmosphere. There is always something there. 

 

The concept of "nothing" is completely invalid. It is no different than talking about pink polka dotted unicorns orbiting Saturn on a unicycle while whistling Dixie.  

 

 

So both concepts in the creation myth are now gone. God and Nothing. Both imagined fantasies that cannot be logically derived from observable reality. 

 

 

The difficulty that even non-believers have with the idea of a "Universe from Nothing" seems to be a psychological attachment to the idea that "nothing" is a real state of being. 

 

 

Lawrence Krauss would do better if he were to rework his approach to include the psychological implications of these findings. 

 

 

 

Being a total layman in these matters, I'd love to hear what you all think. 

[Kevin Beal]

The only escape I can imagine from the fullness of space is absolute zero since there would (theoretically) be no wave to be moving around for particles to pop in and out of. But this is apparently impossible to achieve because:

 

 

 

A system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state. The kinetic energy of the ground state cannot be removed.

 

It may interest people to know that the coldest known place in the universe is on earth.

 

So, I think (also being a layman) that you're right. But, I think, I take issue with the idea that this makes the concept of "nothing" an invalid concept. Because the fact that we can look at these quantum ghost particles as taking up that space implies a background that it's being compared in contrast to. How do you contrast the concept "something" except with "nothing"?

 

Probably (and apparently), there is something else that takes up that space, but I think as a concept it's valid.

 

It reminds me of how the atomic theory of matter looks at the phenomenon of the solidity of matter. The solidity I experience as I knock on the surface of my desk can be described at the level of atoms where what is actually making contact is the electrical resistance of atoms together in a lattice structure against other similarly structured atoms. I don't think that makes solidity an illusion though, rather it's just another level of description that offers a more complete picture.

 

If that makes sense. Maybe I'm nitpicking

 

The human race has had a concept of what "nothing" is for so long that it seems obvious that it is a valid concept. Is the glass half empty of half full? It's always full!

Haha

[_LiveFree_]

Furthermore, I just wanted to add that everyone has at one point or another used the idea of "nothing" as a psychological defense against feeling something that you don't want to feel. For instance,...

 

Parent: "What are you doing in there?!"

Child: [puts pants back on and turns off porn] "Nothing!!"

 

Girlfriend: "What are you thinking about?"

Boyfriend: "Nothing."

 

Friend: "What do you want for your birthday?"

Other Friend: "Nothing." [i want to know I'm really important to you!]

 

Spouse: "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?!"

The Estranged: "NOTHING!!" [i need your love!!]

 

Teacher: "Does anyone have an answer? .  . . .anyone? ....Nothing?

Class: [in their minds] "You're an awful teacher."

 

 

The only escape I can imagine from the fullness of space is absolute zero since there would (theoretically) be no wave to be moving around for particles to pop in and out of. But this is apparently impossible to achieve because:

 

 

 

 

It may interest people to know that the coldest known place in the universe is on earth.

 

So, I think (also being a layman) that you're right. But, I think, I take issue with the idea that this makes the concept of "nothing" an invalid concept. Because the fact that we can look at these quantum ghost particles as taking up that space implies a background that it's being compared in contrast to. How do you contrast the concept "something" except with "nothing"?

 

Probably (and apparently), there is something else that takes up that space, but I think as a concept it's valid.

 

It reminds me of how the atomic theory of matter looks at the phenomenon of the solidity of matter. The solidity I experience as I knock on the surface of my desk can be described at the level of atoms where what is actually making contact is the electrical resistance of atoms together in a lattice structure against other similarly structured atoms. I don't think that makes solidity an illusion though, rather it's just another level of description that offers a more complete picture.

 

If that makes sense. Maybe I'm nitpicking

 

Haha

 

 

This is exactly what I mean! 

 

The concept of "something" is all there is. To contrast "something" with "nothing" is the same as contrasting "something" with "blahblahHOOEEYpoo". You can only contrast something with something else, hence the contrast. Logic arises out of our interactions with the universe. But we have never interacted with "nothing" and have discovered that we never will. "Nothing" doesn't exist. It is just another imagined alternate dimension. Strangely enough, alternate dimensions always seem to be defined by properties or experiences we've had in this dimension. We can't even truly conceive what "nothing" would be like. What we thought was nothing, we now know to be something. Nothing by definition cannot be something. To try and contrast "something" with "nothing" is to make "nothing" into "something". It's self-contradictory. 

 

I don't feel like I'm missing something, but please let me know if you think I am. 

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

Also, (not being a dick, just want to make sure I cover all my bases as best I can )

 

invalid: being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law

 

the concept of God is invalid. I put the concept of nothing in the same category as God. 

 

If someone asked me "What do you want for your birthday?", I could respond, "Nothing", and we'd both have a basic understanding that I don't want that person to get me anything as a gift. But that is not nothing. What do I want? I want this person to refrain from giving me any thing. I want them to respect my wishes. This is something. 

 

This is also why the english language and those lazy jerks who crap all over it can kiss my ass. The definitions we so casually assign to words can reap psychological defenses that keep us from seeing obvious truths.

[JamesRedford]

I'm not a physicist, nor a theologian. (or a philosopher for that matter) I'm just a dude with free time. 

/disclaimer

 

I've been YouTubing physicist Lawrence Krauss and his lectures/debates about the how the universe came into being out of "nothing". There was a debate between him and theologian William Lane Craig. One of the things that Craig kept harping on was the definition of "nothing". While watching that debate, I found myself agreeing with Craig. This led me to realize that either Krauss was wrong, or I just didn't understand what he meant by "nothing". Fast forward through many of his lectures and debates and I think I finally understand what the problem is and why he runs into so much resistance when trying to convince others about the universe arising from "nothing". 

 

Indeed, the problem is in the definition of the word "nothing", which is simply "not anything". A synonym that is much more revealing is the word "void" which is defined as "being without something specified". Now up until very recently in the history of the human race, we have understood the "void" of space to contain absolutely no matter or energy. If you wanted an empirical example of what "nothing" and "void" were, all you had to do was create a vacuum in space. And of course, the vacuum of space happened naturally and made up most of the universe. 

 

The creation myth says that God created the universe from nothing, out of the void. Iron age myth makers would look at an empty sack, empty cup, or up in the sky and say there is nothing in there. They would have a concept of what nothing actually is. Therefore, they could imagine "a great void". As mankind became more technologically advanced we began to understand that while a sack or cup may appear to be empty, in fact there are billions of microscopic particles dancing about inside them; and the sky we now know to be an atmosphere full of all kinds of particles. The concept of "nothing" arose out of the human mind's inability to directly experience something that appeared to not be there. In other words, "if I can't physically see it, it's not there. PEEK-A-BOO!" 

 

The way that scientific advancement played out, though, created an overlap between what we previously believed to be empty to a new concept of empty. No longer was the glass empty or the atmosphere empty, outer space was empty. Then later, the space between electrons and the nucleus of an atom was empty. As long as the concept of nothing had empirical evidence to show that nothing was a valid concept, then theologians would always be able to claim that before the universe there was nothing, with full confidence that "nothing" was something that could be fully understood by even the most mentally challenged individual. 

 

Enter quantum mechanics. 

 

We now understand that all of the visible matter/energy in the universe makes up about 1% of the total matter/energy in the universe. If you are to look at the vacuum of space, where we once thought we could look into nothing, we now understand theoretically and empirically that there are "ghost particles" popping in and out of existence. The void of space is not void. And since space is everywhere, there is no such thing as "nothing" or a "void". Everywhere in the universe, there is something. Nowhere in the universe can you find an true example of "nothing".

 

What does this do to the creation myth "God created the universe from nothing"? Well, it relegates this to the category of creating an alternate dimension to define God. 

 

"nothing true can be said about our reality, because another reality may exist where truth equals falsehood." (Against the Gods? pg20 describing the agnostic argument)

 

The truth about our reality is that it is completely full. We are fish becoming aware of the water. 

 

The human race has had a concept of what "nothing" is for so long that it seems obvious that it is a valid concept. Is the glass half empty of half full? It's always full! It is either full up on beer or it contains half beer and half atmosphere. There is always something there. 

 

The concept of "nothing" is completely invalid. It is no different than talking about pink polka dotted unicorns orbiting Saturn on a unicycle while whistling Dixie.  

 

 

So both concepts in the creation myth are now gone. God and Nothing. Both imagined fantasies that cannot be logically derived from observable reality. 

 

 

The difficulty that even non-believers have with the idea of a "Universe from Nothing" seems to be a psychological attachment to the idea that "nothing" is a real state of being. 

 

 

Lawrence Krauss would do better if he were to rework his approach to include the psychological implications of these findings. 

 

 

 

Being a total layman in these matters, I'd love to hear what you all think. 

 

Hi, Nathan Diehl.

 

In actual fact, everything comes from nothing, mathematically and logically speaking (which is to say, foundationally speaking, i.e., fundamentally speaking). Thus:

 

0+0 = 0

 

-1+1 = 0

 

-2+2 = 0

 

-3+3 = 0

 

-4+4 = 0

 

And so on, literally ad infinitum.

 

That is to say, we exist within the nothingness. Or rather, that the nothingness is everythingness, mathematically and logically speaking.

 

The above is actually just the traditional Christian theological doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, i.e., creation from nothing. That is to say, the traditional Christian theological position of creatio ex nihilo maintains that God did not create the universe from preexisting material, or from His own substance (i.e., the Divine Substance), but rather that the material which makes up the universe came into being with the universe, i.e., that it came into being literally from nothing. Hence: creatio ex nihilo, i.e., creation from nothing.

 

Prof. William Lane Craig is one of the best debaters in our present day, and unfortunately the atheists who debate with him aren't erudite enough to catch him on his doctrinal errors, i.e., errors within traditional Christian theology. Craig knows his opponents, and argues to their weaknesses, but unfortunately he is often not making correct theological arguments thereby. That is to say, Craig is giving arguments du jour, which because he knows his opponents, usually work for the occasion. But often his arguments aren't fundamentally correct arguments, but his opponents don't know enough to spot him on this.

 

The problem with all that is that Craig is setting a foundation upon sand, instead of upon bedrock. Craig's arguments can work for the time being, but only due to the ignorance of his audience. But the point for a theist in arguing for God's existence should not be simply to score points in the present, but rather to make arguments which will withstand the test of time.

 

(And note that I am not implying that Craig is arguing in this du jour way consciously, because I am rather sure that he is not. It is instead because most modern theologians simply are not used to grappling with the implications of modern-day physics, even though modern physics actually makes the strongest possible case for God.) 

 

For the physics details of everything coming from literally nothing, see the excerpt of Prof. Stephen Hawking on p. 16 of my following article:

 

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

 

Further, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

 

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

 

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

[_LiveFree_]

I'm not interested in Christianity. Nor do I have respect for those that try to appear scientific in order to prove a ridiculous myth. Thanks for your interest James.

 

 

What I am interested in is feedback on the idea of nothing. 

[JamesRedford]

I'm not interested in Christianity. Nor do I have respect for those that try to appear scientific in order to prove ridiculous myth. Thanks for your interest James.

 

 

What I am interested in is feedback on the idea of nothing. 

 

I just gave you that. I see that you are a closed-minded, hate-filled bigot.

[_LiveFree_]

I just gave you that. I see that you are a closed-minded, hate-filled bigot.

 

Projection is also a psychological defense against feeling real feelings.

 

If I was a closed-minded hate-filled bigot, I would have called you a name....like "closed-minded hate-filled bigot". Instead, what I did was say thanks, but no thanks. 

[dsayers]

 

How do you contrast the concept "something" except with "nothing"?

 

I don't think this is a case for "nothing" as a valid concept. As a concept, "something" doesn't necessarily indicate presence, but rather a lack of specificity. It reminds me of the question, "Do UFOs exist?" Well of course they do. If you see an airborne object you are not able to identify, it is a UFO to you.

 

So the question becomes: Relative to what? While speaking with others in the context of Earth, the atmosphere is a given. If we say that our pockets are empty, we are saying that they have nothing in them relative to the ubiquitous atmosphere. It's only important to mention so that as thinkers, we are aware that we are treating this as a given as it will in fact make a difference in the event we are speaking in the context of not being where the atmosphere is a given.

 

I do agree with Mr. Diehl's assertion that (were we not to take something like atmosphere as a given) the concept of nothing is invalid. I'm not sure how it ties in with the work of the gentleman he referenced. I do think it's not the most efficient way to disprove creationism.

 

As best we understand the universe, the sum of matter and energy is constant. If this is true, then there's no reason to suspect there was an origin at all. I personally reject creationism and the big bang theory. Though I also observe my bias in avoiding contemplation of the origin since I often see it as a subject of great divide when in fact the origin has little bearing on our daily lives.

[JamesRedford]

Projection is also a psychological defense against feeling real feelings.

 

If I was a closed-minded hate-filled bigot, I would have called you a name....like "closed-minded hate-filled bigot". Instead, what I did was say thanks, but no thanks. 

 

I answered your question. You asked the question. I gave you the veridical answer.

 

In truth, the most extreme form of hatred is to pass over the truth because it doesn't conform to the manner you expect it to conform to. All government slaughters proceed from this one central basis.

[_LiveFree_]

I answered your question. You asked the question. I gave you the veridical answer.

 

In truth, the most extreme form of hatred is to pass over the truth because it doesn't conform to the manner you expect it to conform to. All government slaughters proceed from this one central basis.

 

So because I reject Christianity, I must want to engage in democidal genocide?

 

Please stop posting in this thread. If I want to debate you on your Tiplerisms I will join you in the thread you started. 

 

Thanks, James.

 

 

 

 

I don't think this is a case for "nothing" as a valid concept. As a concept, "something" doesn't necessarily indicate presence, but rather a lack of specificity. It reminds me of the question, "Do UFOs exist?" Well of course they do. If you see an airborne object you are not able to identify, it is a UFO to you.

 

So the question becomes: Relative to what? While speaking with others in the context of Earth, the atmosphere is a given. If we say that our pockets are empty, we are saying that they have nothing in them relative to the ubiquitous atmosphere. It's only important to mention so that as thinkers, we are aware that we are treating this as a given as it will in fact make a difference in the event we are speaking in the context of not being where the atmosphere is a given.

 

I do agree with Mr. Diehl's assertion that (were we not to take something like atmosphere as a given) the concept of nothing is invalid. I'm not sure how it ties in with the work of the gentleman he referenced. I do think it's not the most efficient way to disprove creationism.

 

As best we understand the universe, the sum of matter and energy is constant. If this is true, then there's no reason to suspect there was an origin at all. I personally reject creationism and the big bang theory. Though I also observe my bias in avoiding contemplation of the origin since I often see it as a subject of great divide when in fact the origin has little bearing on our daily lives.

 

 

Whether the big band occurred or not I don't think is all that relevant to this topic (although, it very well could be!). The fact of the matter is the universe is uniformly expanding. 

 

This is definitely not the most efficient way to disprove creationism. Creationism has already been disproved. From what i've seen it's the emotional attachment to the myth that must be overcome. That was my tertiary point about Krauss's approach to explaining the "Universe from Nothing" thing. Krauss is showing that at every place in the universe, there is "something". We don't live in an "empty" universe. We live in an ocean of "ghost particles" popping in and out of existence. 

 

This is the best presentation of Krauss's I've found thus far. 

 

 

Anyway, my point was that we derive logic from interacting with this consistent universe, and since there is no such thing as "nothing" in this universe, where did the idea come from and is it really valid. If it is not a valid concept, then that is one more nail in the deeply buried creationism myth (or another angle that can be taken against it). 

[Kevin Beal]

Technically, "valid" describes a line of logic. A concept cannot be valid or invalid.

 

RTR goes into it, which seems odd to me that a book on relationships should be so full of epistemology.

 

The number zero is as compared to positive or negative numbers. Nothing is as compared to something. A hole is as compared to the material around that "empty" space.

 

Nothing is defined as a lack of something and something is defined as not nothing.

 

Is there anything invalid about those statements? I don't think so.

 

It's the proposition "god exists" that is invalid, and not the concept "god". It's invalid because of the obvious contradictions I'm sure you already know all about in proposing something that is (essentially) defined as non-existence exists.

 

The static of the other universes applies to agnostics because they propose that god may be hiding in some other realm where the meaning of existence is different.

 

I'm just saying that if you are going to use the word "something" (as in "there is always something in that ostensibly empty space") it necessarily implies that it's being compared to something that is not something (which by definition is "nothing"). And if you are saying that "nothing" is an erroneous concept then so is the statement that "something" is replacing it or filling it up.

 

I mean, I'm not crazy, right? Something does imply "not nothing", right?

[JamesRedford]

So because I reject Christianity, I must want to engage in democidal genocide? Please stop posting in this thread. If I want to debate you on your Tiplerisms I will join you in the thread you started.  Thanks, James.

 You asked the question. I gave you the correct answer. Howbeit, you said, "I'm not interested in Christianity. Nor do I have respect for those that try to appear scientific in order to prove ridiculous myth. Thanks for your interest James." The statement of mine which you gave your above response was based upon fundamental mathematics and physics. I wasn't aware that basic mathematics is predicated upon a belief in Christ. Nor was I aware that fundamental physics was predicated upon Christology, since in support of the physics issue on this matter I cited Prof. Stephen Hawking, who, from my last inquiry of him, seemed not to be a Christian. My point regarding your bigotry is that you have in essence basically reduced me to the level of beast who is unworthy of response. That is, that I am in essence an unthinking animal who cannot be reasoned with. What is that if not the essence of stereotyping? What is that if not the essence of reducing a human being to a "type", a "type" that can be ignored and intellectually discarded? 

Whether the big band occurred or not I don't think is all that relevant to this topic (although, it very well could be!). The fact of the matter is the universe is uniformly expanding.  This is definitely not the most efficient way to disprove creationism. Creationism has already been disproved. From what i've seen it's the emotional attachment to the myth that must be overcome. That was my tertiary point about Krauss's approach to explaining the "Universe from Nothing" thing. Krauss is showing that at every place in the universe, there is "something". We don't live in an "empty" universe. We live in an ocean of "ghost particles" popping in and out of existence.  This is the best presentation of Krauss's I've found thus far. 

my point was that we derive logic from interacting with this consistent universe, and since there is no such thing as "nothing" in this universe, where did the idea come from and is it really valid. If it is not a valid concept, then that is one more nail in the deeply buried creationism myth (or another angle that can be taken against it).

[_LiveFree_]

Technically, "valid" describes a line of logic. A concept cannot be valid or invalid.

 

RTR goes into it, which seems odd to me that a book on relationships should be so full of epistemology.

 

The number zero is as compared to positive or negative numbers. Nothing is as compared to something. A hole is as compared to the material around that "empty" space.

 

Nothing is defined as a lack of something and something is defined as not nothing.

 

Is there anything invalid about those statements? I don't think so.

 

It's the proposition "god exists" that is invalid, and not the concept "god". It's invalid because of the obvious contradictions I'm sure you already know all about in proposing something that is (essentially) defined as non-existence exists.

 

The static of the other universes applies to agnostics because they propose that god may be hiding in some other realm where the meaning of existence is different.

 

I'm just saying that if you are going to use the word "something" (as in "there is always something in that ostensibly empty space") it necessarily implies that it's being compared to something that is not something (which by definition is "nothing"). And if you are saying that "nothing" is an erroneous concept then so is the statement that "something" is replacing it or filling it up.

 

I mean, I'm not crazy, right? Something does imply "not nothing", right?

 

ok, this made me think.

 

 

(After writing and deleting two responses...)

 

You're last paragraph summed it up. 

 

"I'm just saying that if you are going to use the word "something" (as in "there is always something in that ostensibly empty space") it necessarily implies that it's being compared to something that is not something (which by definition is "nothing"). And if you are saying that "nothing" is an erroneous concept then so is the statement that "something" is replacing it or filling it up."

 

"Something" implies comparison to another "something". "This is a glass", "compared to what?". To say something is "something" is to say that it exists. You can't say that something is also not something. It either exists or not. The concept of there not being "something" exists as a thing, but the state of not being something does not. 

 

I'm running up against a wall, so that means it's analogy time.

 

(take this as a for instance, not literal) All people have cars, there is no instance where a person does not have a car. It is impossible for there to be a person without a car. What does the statement "I don't have a car," mean?

 

I guess that the concept of "nothing" is like the concept of "infinity". When using mathematics, infinity can be very helpful. When talking about things, the concept of nothing can be helpful. But do these concepts accurately describe a possible state of/in the universe?

 

I think another problem with definitions is the scale we're operating on. On the macro level these definitions you've pointed out are obvious. 

 

Fuggit, i've got more reading to do. 

 

Thanks, Kevin!

[dsayers]

Nothing is as compared to something. ... Nothing is defined as a lack of something and something is defined as not nothing.

 

Just to be clear, as I'm sure you're aware, the ability to describe something is not proof of its existence. I think the point of the thread was to say that we once thought that nothingness existed. Since as far as we know now, this isn't true, "nothing" is now only a concept. As such, creationism additionally fails by claiming that everything was created from nothing.

 

Thank you for the clarification of valid not applying to concepts.

[_LiveFree_]

 You asked the question. I gave you the correct answer. Howbeit, you said, "I'm not interested in Christianity. Nor do I have respect for those that try to appear scientific in order to prove ridiculous myth. Thanks for your interest James." The statement of mine which you gave your above response was based upon fundamental mathematics and physics. I wasn't aware that basic mathematics is predicated upon a belief in Christ. Nor was I aware that fundamental physics was predicated upon Christology, since in support of the physics issue on this matter I cited Prof. Stephen Hawking, who, from my last inquiry of him, seemed not to be a Christian. My point regarding your bigotry is that you have in essence basically reduced me to the level of beast who is unworthy of response. That is, that I am in essence an unthinking animal who cannot be reasoned with. What is that if not the essence of stereotyping? What is that if not the essence of reducing a human being to a "type", a "type" that can be ignored and intellectually discarded? 

 

 

Now I'm going to use the ignore feature. I'm not interested in interacting with you at all. Bye.

[Kevin Beal]

Just to be clear, as I'm sure you're aware, the ability to describe something is not proof of its existence.

"Nothing" by definition doesn't exist. Thats sort of what makes it nothing.

[JamesRedford]

Now I'm going to use the ignore feature. I'm not interested in interacting with you at all. Bye.

 

Of course, because I am objectively correct and you are objectively wrong.