Have you fucks defined the terms you use, before you get involved in these long conversations that lead nowhere but back to where all your threads lead to?
forgive the interruption…
Some-thing
No-thing
Both refer to something named ‘thing’ - one affirming it as ‘some’ and the other nullifying it as ‘no’.
What is this “thing”?
Does it exist in the world, or in the mind, which is in the world?
What’s the difference?
Noumenon/Phenomenon?
What about this “one/nil”?
Where are they?
What are they?
What is nil negating as ‘one’?
An idea/ideal?
What is an idea and how does it form?
But what am I doing…this is a clown forum.
Back to the circus.
Before I offer my answer to the question,
let me just say that if it were possible for such an amazing and perfect being as Creator God to always exist, then it would be much easier for our ordinary, and somewhat imperfect, Universe to always exist, too. So, perhaps in parallel to our clearly visible Universe, there might also exist some invisible god, or gods?
As to the main question above, I do agree with an ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, who had observed this obvious truth that the “nothing”, or the ontological “non-existence”, simply isn’t an existing alternative to the existence of our Universe, and therefore, logically reasoning, the entire ontological existence must have been existing always.
I don’t think that is valid logical argument to say “non-existence” is not an alternative – presuming to say that non-existence must exist in order to displace existence.
What does it mean “to exist”? And why can’t that condition be absent?
I think that would be related more to the relevance of an existence - how much anyone or thing would care. I think the more fundamental question (which James had a really great answer to) is how to distinguish existence from nonexistence - what is the defining difference?
Time is a secondary concept that has meaning only with reference to already existing things. Therefore “always something” is the default position.
“Something from nothing” is a contradiction and impossibility, also a misunderstanding of the nature of time.
NOW given this, the real question is: why does anything exlst (and not rather nothing)? This can perhaps only be answered logically: because nothingness itself, in the most absolute and highest possible universal-complete and total meaning, would be impossible if only for the fact that even the logic of its own imposibility would still constitite the existence of something, this invalidating its own premise.
There are other possible positions than either theism or atheism? Or Agnosticism as I already mentioned? Feel free to expound.
Because it seems to me like you are just another radical ideologue de facto dismissing everything from your self-proclaimed high and mighty vantage. You claim theism and atheism are not useful to anyone? Oh really. 99.99% of humanity will beg to differ.
But please, oh wise one, enlighten us as to the alternate pure philosophical positions beyond the supposed theism/atheism conceptual divide
