can nonexistence exist?

[The Nihilist]

Wait, but then the concept has to exist...

Quiet, Anselm!

 

[tucker58]

Quiet, Anselm!

Well angry person I guess you got a free post credit

One wonders why an angry person would be on this message board?

One wonders why an angry person doesn't go some where else and do something else.

love,

tuck

 

[tucker58]

Wait, but then the concept has to exist...

Chesterton, study the math of Stephen Hawking things that go into "black holes" do not even have memory . Even concepts cease to exist.

love,

tuck

 

[bricklayer]

Any attempt to explicity deny existence implicitly affirms it.

Existence is self-evident, so is:
non-contradiction
identity
exclusion
causality
contingency
necessity
existential: causality, contingency and necessity
the corospondence of truth

These are among the first-principles of logic.
Any attempt to deny them is self-defeating.

Dr. Norman Geisler's treatment of the philosophical presuppositions, in the first half of volume one of his systematic theology, changed my life.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Wait, but then the concept has to exist...

The concept of something is not the thing itself. If it was, fiction would be impossible.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wait, but then the concept has to exist...

Only if you want to make a firm commitment to some form of Platonism.

If a concept is thought, then with no thinking entities existing to contemplate "non-existence", the concept doesn't exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Any attempt to explicity deny existence implicitly affirms it. [...]

Dr. Norman Geisler's treatment of the philosophical presuppositions, in the first half of volume one of his systematic theology, changed my life.

Ayn Rand said pretty much the same thing with her philosophical axioms. She changed my life too.

But all of this is beside the point. No one is trying to prove in this topic that existence does not exist, as we are contemplating the issue right at this moment. Of course it exists, since we exist to contemplate the issue. Even Augustine saw this, and long before Descartes. When asked how he could know for certain that he exists, he replied, very sensibly: "If I am mistaken, I exist."

We are asking if it is possible for existence not to exist -- could it have somehow failed to exist, or is that impossible?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Matter actually exists.
It has actuality and existence,
however, it also has the potential to not exist.

Matter is that with mass.
Space is position, relative to matter.
Time is the progessive sequencial icrementation of the matter-space continuum.
Time cannot be infinitely regressive, or the current increment of time could not occur.
Therefore, the matter-space-time continuum has a begining.
It may not have an end, but it certinly has a begining.

The material world is complex, in that is has both actuality and potentiality.
God is simple, in that He actually exisits, but He has no potential to not exist.
He has no potential to change at all.
God is simple. He is what He is, knows what He knows, emotes what He emotes.

God's purpose for physical existence is to reveal His glory.
God's glory is His holiness.
God's holiness is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
God's holiness is everything about Him,
anything less than everything is a violation of His holiness.
It's His love and His hate, His mercy and His wrath, His judgement and His grace.
Sin and salvation from sin is not plan-B.
It is the revelation of what God knows about Himself.
All of this is just God's necessary knowledge made manifest in a contingent creation.

 

[variant]

If nonexistence, or nothingness, is the complete lack of all existence, then isn't it impossible for it to exist? Because, if it existed, there would be something existing, and therefore there would not "be" nonexistence/nothingness.

No. Being is an alternative to nothing. Nothing doesn’t have to "exist" to be reality.

If thet is true, and a nonexistence is impossible, then something must exist out of necessity. So, when we wake up to find ourselves in a world, and see clouds, cars and sheep, we ought not be totally suprised after all.

No there would simply be nothing that exists.

Try not to get confused by a language which makes it seem like something has to exist to be reality because you live in a reality where something does and thus the language assumes something must exist to be a reality.

 

[Chesterton]

Quiet, Anselm!

Oh, right. I forgot to add that the greatest concept must actually exist. But that's just common sense.

 

[bricklayer]

Material existence begs an efficient-cause, a necessary-cause, an uncaused-cause.

 

[variant]

Material existence begs an efficient-cause, a necessary-cause, an uncaused-cause.

Only if material existence needs to be caused at all.

 

[bricklayer]

Increasing entropy precludes material necessity.

 

[variant]

Increasing entropy precludes material necessity.

That dosen't make any sense.
pre·clude (pr

-kl

d

)
tr.v. pre·clud·ed, pre·clud·ing, pre·cludes 1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent. See Synonyms at prevent.
2. To exclude or prevent (someone) from a given condition or activity: Modesty precludes me from accepting the honor.


How would increasing randomness make material necessity impossible. What do you mean by material necessity? It seems material is necessary for entropy in the first place!

Perhaps you don't understand my point.

There is no reason to believe that necessary conditions within material reality are also necessary conditions for material reality as a whole. There is a class problem.

 

[bricklayer]

Exactly!
By virtue of the fact that matter does not spontaneously increase incomplexity, order (information), or availability;
it therefore does not exist necessarily.
Matter exists contingently.
It has actuality. It actually exists, but it exists contingently.
Matter is complex. God is simple.
God actually exists, but He has no potential to not exist.
He exists necessarily.
It is His nature to exist.
We actually exist, but we have the potential to not exist.
We have actuality and potentiality, we are complex.
We exist contingently.

Matter cannot explain itself, existentially, because it does not exist necessarily.
Matter exists contingently, its purpose is to reveal (explain) God.
God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

 

[quatona]

Any attempt to explicity deny existence implicitly affirms it.

That´s probably why nobody even tried to "deny existence" here, in the first place.

 

[bricklayer]

That would be exactly I didn't either,
but the question was asked.

 

[variant]

Matter cannot explain itself, existentially, because it does not exist necessarily.
Matter exists contingently, its purpose is to reveal (explain) God.
God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

Not really, all you need to explain the material universe is a single instance of an event that runs counter to the rules of what we see with matter that currently exists within the universe.

We certainly don't know enough about matter to rule such a thing out.

 

[Cain Spencer]

Non-existence cannot exist, by definition. However, the concept of non-existence can, because it's a concept rather than actual non-existence.

Non existence is just dornment or motionless energy.

 

[bricklayer]

Energy is the result of material interaction.
It is the effect not the cause, and no effect can transcend its cause.

If only we would observe one instance of a "spontaneous" decrease in entropy ...
But alas, everything we have ever observerved goes the other way.