Can something come from nothing?

Author: DebateAllDaTings

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#1
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
If there is nothing, that means there is no restrictions, thus, there is nothing stopping something from popping into existence.

However, if there is nothing, there is no potential, meaning no potential for something to pop into existence.

Can something come from nothing?

#2
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Define "nothing" and provide an example, please.
Topic's author
#3
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
Nothing could be defined as "a complete lack of any existence whatsoever". 

Also, why are you asking for an example? That seems like a bizarre request.
#4
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
If nothing has the ability to become something then does that not mean that nothing has some property to it, thus it must actually be something?
Topic's author
#5
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
What property do you mean? Do you mean "potential", like I alluded to in the OP?
#6
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Nothing could be defined as "a complete lack of any existence whatsoever". 
Okay. If there are no building blocks, no forces, no energy, etc, then it seems "nothing" will stay that way.



Topic's author
#7
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
For sure it seems that way, the question is, is that necessarily so? If there is no existence at all, that would mean no restrictions. What would stop something from popping into existence?
#8
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
For sure it seems that way, the question is, is that necessarily so? If there is no existence at all, that would mean no restrictions. What would stop something from popping into existence?
The absence of restriction doesn't mean anything is possible. Something (which is not nothing) is required for potential. 
Topic's author
#9
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
So just so we are clear, you are saying that if something were to pop into being, then this can only be the case if the potential for that something were to exist logically prior (that potential would be itself "something").

Is this correct?
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Nothing could be defined as "a complete lack of any existence whatsoever". 
which means, logically, there can be no such thing as "nothing"
Topic's author
#11
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course there cannot be such “thing” as no-“thing”.

That’s trivially true. 
#12
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
So just so we are clear, you are saying that if something were to pop into being, then this can only be the case if the potential for that something were to exist logically prior (that potential would be itself "something").

Is this correct?
I'm saying nothing comes from nothing.

#13
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
If so, then there is also something, because it never was nothing. As a result, existence is eternal, resulting in a transcendental God external of existence required to create existence, obsolete. Unless we change definitions, I am pretty sure this disproves God instead of proving it.
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Of course there cannot be such “thing” as no-“thing”.
so, it is also trivially true that no thing can spring whole from "nothing" (because nothing can NOT logically exist)

where is NOTHING, it can only be nowhere

when is NOTHING, it can only be at no time

how big is NOTHING, it can only be no size

#15
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
If there is nothing, that means there is no restrictions, thus, there is nothing stopping something from popping into existence.
False.  The macro-infinite, and truly non-occupied space, exists in complement, and via its embracment of,  the finite, occupied space Universe/God, and the finite Universe/God, has restricitions, --obvious to truth seekers-- ergo restrictions do exist, within the macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space, that pertain to finite Universe/God within the infinite and truly non-occupied space.

And inherent restriction to the macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space, is that, it is only  restricted by the shape of the finite, occupied space, that it embraces/surrounds. Occupied shapes non-occupied space, within, sort of like and egg in a finite womb of space.  The only differrence is the womb is finite.

However, if there is nothing, there is no potential, meaning no potential for something to pop into existence.
Now you finally using some logic for a change YAY!  Both of these two primary kinds of space --in complement to each other--- are eternally existent.

Humans cannot truly get their head  around infinite nor eternal existence. And there is the third kind of existence, that is also complementary to tow kinds of space, and that is Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts ex ego. Ive been very clear with my explanations of this Cosmic Trinary Set for at least 10 years and to some degree for 20 years.
123 ABC, thats how is easy ' U 'niverse/' G 'od can be, sung to M Jackson and Jackson 5 song

Can something come from nothing?

You should no the correct answer for that, by now.  All else is childish fools play. My numerical, invaginated 2D lattice, as representation of the 3D torus, explains what happens at these cyclic events of the Big Bang or as Fuller called them, the next WOW!

1} The first thing to realize, is that all particles of Universe/God ---barring graviton-darkion--- are composed of two or more of my invaginated tori.

2} the 2nd thing to realize, is the outer positive geodesic peak of Gravity  is ultra-micro ergo Metaphysical because we do not detect/quantise/quantify it ergo it is  and same goes for Dark Energy,

3} a numerically triangulated sine-wave pattern exists inside each of these tori,  and the proper combination of interfering sine-wave patterns leads that which is beyond just being a virtual particle, but becomes a real particle, that we do quantize and quantify as fermionic matter and bosonic forces.

Here again, 123, ABC, thats how easy Universe/God can be. Sung to M Jackson and jackson 5 tune. So read my lips/text and if you must, address any specific comment or word you do not grasp/understand/comprehend.

..................space(   )(   )space..... = vertical view of a bisected torus/cross-section with macro-infinite space outside of it

................space(   ) i  (  )space...... i = Meta-space ego that exists beyond the torus { conceptually }  and outside of non-occupied space { conceptual representation } i.e outside of the toroidal tube and its surface set of nodal events

...............space( * ) i  ( * )space...... * * = bilateral consciousness

...........space(> t <) i  ( > t <)space.......  t = observed time { quanta }

.........space( /\/\/ ) i  ( /\/\/ )space...... /\/\/ = sine-wave pattern associated with physical reality aka observed time and consciousness

.........space(> * <) i  (> * <)space........>< = invaginations from outer peak of positive geodesic and inner peak of negative geodesic
 

#16
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
All of my above post #15 stems from fourness and correlates with Arthur Youngs operating system of Universe --viva four lines/levels---  The Reflexive Universe LINK, and,

Bucky Fullers Operating System of Universe based on four hexagonal planes of the Vector Equilibrium { VE } aka cubo-octahedron.

My  2D lattice representation of a 3D torus, is based on similar concept to Arthurs Youngs, except he begain with numerical #1 and I began with #0 and he never inside-outed his  symmetrical version, whereas I did inside-out my symmetrical version to create the asymmetrical version and the toroidal concepts of Gravity, observed time and Dark Energy

Symmetrical version { inherent sine-wave pattern }:

0.............................................6.......................................12..........................................18.

......1.............................5p............7p.....................11p..........13p.........................17p.......

.............2p.............4............................8..........10...........................14.........16....................

.....................3p.........................................9.........................................15.............................

Next below is the  inside-outed asymmetrical version of the above:

......1.............................5p...........7p............................11p.............13p........................17p....G{ outer }....................
-
-
0..............................................6.................................................12.....................................Observable Time inside
 
---Bucky Fullers----abstract/conceptual great circle----central inside of 3D torodial tube as conceptual spine------
 
........................3p............................................9.................................................15..............Observable Time inside
-
-
.................2p............4................................8...........10..................................14.......16............DE { inner }....................

So take note, that Arthur Youngs operating system of Universe stems from a fourness { the four lines } and,

Bucky Fullers Operating System of Universe is the four hexagonal planes that define his Vector Equlilbrium LINK aka cubo-octahedron
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Ebuc showing up made this thread golden.

Topic's author
#18
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Is this a joke? His perfect example of irrelevant "Gobledygook" isn't even worth responding to. I hope he is trolling.
#19
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Here again, 123, ABC, thats how easy Universe/God can be. Sung to M Jackson and jackson 5 tune. So read my lips/text and if you must, address any specific comment or word you do not grasp/understand/comprehend.
It is very clear to me, if you don't understand please clarify!
Topic's author
#20
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
That just seems like a bare-assertion. Why can't something come from nothing?
Topic's author
#21
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Nothing isn't a "thing",  and it is the absence of existence so obviously nothing cannot "exist".

I'm not sure how those two facts have anything to do with the idea of something coming from nothing. 

I don't think you fully understand the concept of "nothing" as you refer to "nothing" as "it".

Nothing is the lack of any "its".
Topic's author
#22
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Ahhh ok, you guys are trolling.
#23
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
.........space(> * <) i  (> * <)space........>< = invaginations from outer peak of positive geodesic and inner peak of negative geodesi

Topic's author
#24
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for clearing that up, it all makes sense now
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
it is the absence of existence
it is impossible to imagine nothing

it is impossible to find nothing

it is impossible to identify exactly where nothing is

there is no nothing

and never has been

therefore, "something" cannot emerge from it
#26
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Nothing isn't a "thing",  and it is the absence of existence so obviously nothing cannot "exist".

Delusional as there is three primary kinds of cosmic existence and you cant seem to grasp any of three.  Silly mind games on your part
#27
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
it is impossible to imagine nothing
False we can conceptualize truly non-occupied space. Infinite and eternal is harder to conceptualize { get our head around }.

it is impossible to find nothing
Best classfied as unknown at this time, we know it exists via common sense logic of what exists outside of finite occupied space Universe/God. Simple conclusion yet ego keeps many from this truth

it is impossible to identify exactly where nothing is
False. It is outside of finite, occupied space Universe. Again this is simple stuff.


there is no nothing
False

and never has been
False.

therefore, "something" cannot emerge from it
True.  Something { occupied space } cannot emerge from truly non-occupied space aka naught is created nor destroyed only transformed and been known since late 1800's. Old news

One out six 3Ru. Either you getting  better or worse, I'm not sure. :--)

Take note how none can address specific comment by with any logical common sense that invalidates my comments, as stated.  Ego based mental blockages rather throw stones than place their ego to the side. Humans.



#28
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
That just seems like a bare-assertion. Why can't something come from nothing?
All observation supports things coming from other things. Based on that fact, it is my pragmatic view that something will not come to be from nothing. Is that actually true? I don't know. 


#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,814
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Yes, on this debate site you can win a debate when there are 0 arguments against yours by a full forfeit. Isn't that something from nothing?
#30
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,814
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

OMG, DebateArt is a Black Hole !