We live in an illogical world

I dont see what your problem is. There are things, we know that for sure right? Are you trying to imply that the universe would have to be eternal rather than having any sort if "start"? If so then you can only make such an assumption based off of your interactions inside this universe with its laws, before the universe those laws were not in place and we don't know how it worked so it possible that something could have come from nothing at that point.

Wy are you so angry and inarticulate? Are you as Brainlet?

>Are you trying to imply that the universe would have to be eternal rather than having any sort if "start"?
I'm trying to say that both of those things don't make any sense.

>he can't comprehend simple concept but yet I'm the brainlet
Must be that reddit browsing that has completely skullfucked you.

How so? Why don't they make sense? Expound upon your point.

Yeah, keep acting like a little mongoloid cunt. Really helps with your question of "how does it make sense that thing", you've done a great job of communicating your point. Fucking moron.

There is "something" though. So clearly it's not impossible.

I already gave you an example, I'm getting tired of you. The first link is of nothingness and from it you can't have something. Something can't simply be, it has some beginning and the beginning of all things come from nothing and since you cant create something out of nothing the world is impossible.
I'm not here to correct your poor reading comprehension, I thought people here could at least read a basic text but sadly was completely wrong.

If something exists then it obviously must be something. Nothing about reality existing claims that reality came from nothing. You claim that the contemporary understanding of nature claims that something came out of nothing. That claim isn't factual and is ontologically naive. The laws and truths that we abstract from the fragment of reality we can interpret tell us about things like the big bang, nothing there means something came from nothing, it just means that's true in our model, another user is already explaining this part to you better and I'm no longer interested

Wow you're autistic as fuck, good luck getting anyone to help explain anything to do. Kill yourself.

Yes, I'm trying to say that you can't answer it logically. It is a question that doesn't require more information as the premise is impossible.

Wow, just wow. You're a co plate moron, you cant understand even the most basic of concepts. If this is just go at I'll give you a solid 5/7

Is pic related you, it must be
>I tell him that he doesn't understand a basic concept and 2 reply's later he tells me that I don't just because
Are you ok, user?

Then why didn't you start your thread by saying "how is it that anything ever came to be without breaking causality" it's not my fault you can't ask the question you're looking for the answer to.

You're literally subhuman.

Nothing cant generate something is only true in the current state of the universe.You cant apply the current laws and axioms to how the universe came to be.

>premise is impossible.
The premise that something came from nothing? Why? What makes it impossible? Are you telling me you know what the rules of nature were before the universe? You should go talk to someone if you do, I'm sure that's a big breakthrough.

>how is it that anything ever came to be without breaking causality
It is clear that causality is broken and so your question is pointless
its simply
>how is it that anything ever came to be
This is a basic logic test that doesn't matter if the "laws somehow changed". It makes zero sense to claim logic changed when the question is as bare as possible.

>This is a basic logic test that doesn't matter if the "laws somehow changed". It makes zero sense to claim logic changed when the question is as bare as possible.

Just go off youself now, I'm done.

You are caught up in words, user. "Something" and "nothing" are useful labels the physicists use to explain the situation to laymen easily. Even then the cosmological models used to make those explanations are just that, models. We don't know what was before the universe, we don't even know if that question makes sense. So to make semantic arguments against or for highly advanced cosmological questions is pretty pointless.

Have you ever heard about Jesus?

bump

Why are you speaking of abiogenesis when you mean the existence of reality? Abiogenesis is just energy interacting and reshaping, like anything else, life is younger than the universe, and reality itself is either infinite or incomprehensible. Reality is something else entirely.

It doesn't make sense from our view, no, you keep reducing it and it just means that something has to come from nothing, right? Maybe not...maybe our view is flawed.

If something cannot come from nothing, then from this view (which again, may just be a result of our philosophy and biology, unable to adequately reason beyond), then we can only assume that there it is all infinite...or that some baser start-point is infinite, at least -- note that most of our physics are models of energy interacting, those models require energy and specific states, they're not some objective and eternal laws, in other words, "the big bang" isn't the beginning of reality, just energy states and corresponding mechanics, our universe. "Infinite" is pretty hard to comprehend if considering it literally/physically (i.e, not mathematically or some other such system). But what if there is no start or end to this baser thing? We can't reason that there isn't, not really, it breaks everything, especially natural intuition. So, what next? Ignore it and move on, accept that the baser thing is either infinite or has a nature even more incomprehensible to us. I don't think there is much more you can do, you can play with metaphysics and physics alike but you won't get anywhere, just delusion. Accept that the supposed logical contradiction of reality is a product of our reasoning. Reality and the universe do exist, so we can assume that it is actually logically-consistent in some sense (obviously not our own sense, likely beyond our capabilities).

Maybe you should try rethinking fundamental logic, to see if you can glean any possibilities of different logic.

>something come from nothingthing
maybe notnot

> how can something come from nothingthing

God

To me something coming form nothing is logical.

>OP's first baby philosophy thread
We have like two of this daily, OP. You're wrong. Get over it.

Thanks, finally a proper response, I appreciate it
>baby philosophy
Yeah it ain't anything like talking about quantifiers, it makes you so sophisticated

Yes

Maybe

You're fucking autistic, you know that's right?

Fee fie foe fum I smell the blood of a Veeky Forumstorian shitposter.

When exactly was there nothing?

Something can come from nothing because of the interrelation from nothing to everything. If you define the ideological concepts of nothing and everything numerically, they would be 0 and Infinity. So speaking mathematically, if you understand the different sizes of infinity, an "everything" would be a different size of nothing (0). If you learn about the different sizes of infinity then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that 0 and infinity are actually one in the same, just the extreme measurements of an infinite numerical spectrum from our perspective- from "0 to Aleph null". Therefore, since 0 and infinity are the same, verbally it can be said that "nothing and everything are the same". Also therefore, "something" can come from "nothing" because it falls in between "nothing to everything". This is most likely a consequence of us simply seeing things as "things". We like to try and simplify the objective reality around us in such a way that we see patterns, and we call those patterns "things". Oddly enough if you delve deeper into this topic it shows exactly why mathematics is at such a crossroads when it comes to quantum mechanics and macro physics. Its because we can't seem to answer the question "how would be experience reality without the advent of concept of 'things'?" properly.

>If I call everyone autistic nobody would notice!!!1!

>everyone
No, just you. You're the one going around being an unmitigated retard.

>something come from nothing
The singularity is not "nothing" its a misconception brainlets make when they try to understand the big bang. The big bang is not an explosion from nowhere it is the result of the singularity that always existed suddenly expanding. Most idiots think the big bang is BOOM universe. No its more like "something" that is incomprehensibly dense and energetic slowly becomes to lose density then condense into what we call quarks then as those quarks lose energy they form the first building blocks of matter protons and neutrons, sometime around this period electrons were made by the leftover hyper dense "something". As time passed the matter stew lost more energy forming the first atom and molecule hydrogen from then on all of that hydrogen compacted into a mega star that exploded producing higher elements like helium and carbon then the leftovers from that initial explosion became the remainder of all baryonic matter in our universe right now.

>when you realize black holes are mini universes if they were to suddenly expand outwards.

>accuses someone of being retarded but can't point out why
You're the one who is mentally deficient

In nothing, there is no space
No time, no mass, no energy
No change, no logic, no laws
No causation, no restrictions
How, then, could it be "impossible"
For something to happen
For no reason at all?

You have been indoctrinated by the religion of "theoretical" science - quarks, protons, neutrons etc are nothing but pure fantasy. The big bang theory is laughable, people who believe it are fucking crazier than fundamental Christians.

Everything you spout comes from nutjobs doing bullshit pseudo-science. Everything they do is non-physical, the complete opposite of science.

Let x_1 \in X be "something" (anything)
Let f : X —> X be the function that tells you where something comes from (e.g. f("matter") = "big bang")
By recursion it's clear you'll end up at nothingness, so I agree with OP. However, here's the fun part:
f(f) = ?
Remember the set X contains anything, even the posed assumption that "everything comes from somewhere". I'm probably not moving from ontology to the inner mind properly but I think it's an interesting extension of "nothingness" and if that question defeats/annihilate itself a priori.

...

Or you are left with an infinite past with no beginning, or our understanding of the action-reaction causal relationship of things is a flawed mental model. I agree it's weird no matter what though.

this is when you're supposed to take 350-500ug of lsd in the forest to figure this shit out

Think about how limited our brains are. The brain evolved for hunting and organizing small social hierarchies. Are you surprised that they can't fully comprehend the workings of the universe?

What if there was never a nothing?

real question from bainlet. How insanely unlikely are we to be alive when we are? Considering how long physicists and whatnot think the universe will survive, how did we get so lucky to be here at basically ASAP? We're only, what, ~13.7 billion years or something? Why aren't we 10 trillion years in the future? Isn't that the real reason we can't find a single sign of life? We are just so early? I mean, we are just so insanely early when you think about it.