I was talking to my Philosophy teacher yesterday. He's a strong Catholic, but for the right reasons.

In his office, I reached the end.

We were talking about the 4 laws of inference, especially the Law of Nothingness. The Law of Nothingness states, "From absolute nothing you get nothing," which is obvious. The Law of Nothingness is the shadow of the Law of Causality, "Every effect has a a cause." The two are closely tied. Along with the Law of Resemblance and Prior Possession, these laws are the basics that work our minds' reasoning.

Suddenly, it hit me. This cannot be nothing, because this(existence) is something (Law of Nothingness) and that the existence always was because if there was nothing it would only yield nothing (Law of Nothingness). And since existence is an effect, there must be a cause (Law of Causality).

This point is the end. I tried as hard as I could, but this was as far as I could go logically. I came to this point, and from here nothing matters and nothing can be proven. This is all I have, "Something was always there for eternity and it caused existence."

Sometimes I just wish all this was the dream of a magic beetle the tropics.

This is tiring. Can anyone go farther?

• Spread
• Media
• Quote
• 145 visits

Either you deify creation or you call it God.

• Quote
• Cite

Yes. Something has always existed. It's impossible to comprehend, but it's a logical fact.

• Quote
• Cite

I never realised how retarded philosophy students were. We have no data to suggest that you can go back infinitely in time and there will always be more time as the 'law of causality' suggests, and the 'law of nothingness' is ill-equipped to even consider the question, when there is less than nothing (consider no space versus empty space: these are wholly distinct in physics). These logical shortcuts obviously apply only in an already created universe so trying to use them to regress towards the very beginning is foolish.

• Quote
• Cite

Funny, I was thinking about this just a moment ago. (Well, I do it from time to time, but…) I can all but hear my brain making an audible snap every time I try to imagine an universal state of absolute nothingness, and try to somehow make that fit into the notion of existence. It's the only thing that really wrenches my mind off its genuine track.

There's actually something quite pleasant about that concept - since something exists, and has always existed, it stands to reason that something will always exist. Existence is absolute. It's quite… consoling, to me.

• Quote
• Cite

Hm, but don't these laws you discussed only apply to this instantiated thing we call current existence? They might not apply to a different object, say… the lack of existence or the 'before' existence. You're logic doesn't make sense to me.

• Quote
• Cite

"Something" has always existed, but not necessarily on our plane of existence. The "universe" is only made up of the 3-D part intersection of one or more 'branes' which together constitute a multiverse with up to 11 or 26 dimensions, according to which theory you're viewing it by.
So, while our 3D universe may at some point before the Big Bang simply "not have existed", that does not meant nothing ELSE has existed, which could eventually create matter in our reality.
This is all possible without violating the laws you mentioned, OP, and in accordance to (theoretical) physics.

• Quote
• Cite