"nothingness" can't exist therefore there was always something. prove me wrong

A state with no properties can't exist.

>A state with no properties can't exist.
so?

>'red' and 'fast' don't exist either
actually they do. the point is that "something which doesn't exist" can't exist, therefore something always existed.

So there was always something. Because something can't come from nothing.

>"something which doesn't exist" can't exist, therefore something always existed.
how does that follow?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

>Because something can't come from nothing.
Why not?

I skipped a few steps. I thought it was obvious enough.

>I skipped a few steps. I thought it was obvious enough.
Then fill in the gaps.

How can 0 properties (no laws of physics, no matter, time, no anything) can produce laws of physics, time, matter and anything

>How can 0 properties (no laws of physics, no matter, time, no anything) can produce laws of physics, time, matter and anything
Did you misread my post? I asked why something can't come from nothing. You're not supposed to answer a question with another question.

This is just a game of semantics. There has never been a "nothing " from which "something" came. There's just always been something.

>There has never been a "nothing " from which "something" came. There's just always been something.
Repeating a statement over and over doesn't make it true.

It's tough because I'm speaking in my second language:
Everything we know exists because of some law of physics, energy or matter. A state where there is literally nothing, no existence, can't give rise to something because there's nothing happening and no object that can be acted upon.

Self-evident.

>Self-evident.
Allegedly.

>le words don't exist.

>Everything we know exists because of some law of physics, energy or matter. A state where there is literally nothing, no existence, can't give rise to something because there's nothing happening and no object that can be acted upon.
There is zero (0) evidence that the universe has always existed.

Since nothingness is logically impossible, the only other option is something. Therefore something has always existed.

>Since nothingness is logically impossible
Prove it, using logic.

Show me a 'fast'.

If nothing existed, it wouldn't be nothing. It's an attempt at ascribing two contradictory properties to a thing.

Tell us what properties "nothingness" has.

This. It's like saying, "this thing's property is that it has no properties." The problem is that that is itself a property.

Fucking idiot.

Show me an atom. It only exists as a perception, just like the concept of "fast."

If concepts 'exist' then nothing exists.

>Fucking idiot.
Ad hominem.

Next?

>Tell us what properties "nothingness" has.
Nothingness is red, nothingness is blue.

>Next?

You open your fucking eyes and believe that what is not simply is not.

>If nothing existed, it wouldn't be nothing.
What is "it", if nothing existed?

>You open your fucking eyes and believe that what is not simply is not.
You've never taken a science class, let alone a philosophy class, have you?

"it" refers to the illogical concept of nothingness.

>"it" refers to the illogical concept of nothingness.
Then why wouldn't nothingness be nothing?

Because it can't be. Logically impossible.

Nothing exists
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it
Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others
Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood

>Because it can't be. Logically impossible.
Saying something is logically impossible doesn't make it so, you need to actually use logic.

Already did so above. That's when you (?) went silent.

>Because it can't be. Logically impossible.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothingness
If nothingness is "the quality or state of being nothing", then why is it logically impossible for nothingness to be nothing when it is nothing by definition?

>Already did so above. That's when you (?) went silent.
Which post did I not reply to satisfactorily?

dictionary.com/browse/nothing?s=t

"Something that is nonexistent." The problem arises at "something," which implies existence.

these:

>all of these Veeky Forums posters using circular reasoning to justify why nothingness being an impossibility is a valid postulate
Good thread.

>implying there is non-circular reasoning
back to plebbit

You've avoided the question again:
If nothingness is "the quality or state of being nothing", then why is it logically impossible for nothingness to be nothing when it is nothing by definition?

>"Something that is nonexistent." The problem arises at "something," which implies existence.
If something implies existence, and thing includes the definition "anything that is or may become an object of thought" (dictionary.com/browse/thing), then nothing exists.

I already replied to , and was not a reply to any of my posts.

>"this thing's property is that it has no properties." The problem is that that is itself a property.
If nothing exists then there's by definition _no thing_ to apply this "logical impossibility" to.

The problem is how can the state of having no properties and non-existence give rise to properties and existence. By which means can that be achieved?

Really activated my almonds. Can't refute.

>The problem is how can the state of having no properties and non-existence give rise to properties and existence.
I don't see why this is 'the problem'. Where in this thread was this stated to be the case? I only see claims that something can't come from nothing.

>The problem is how can the state of having no properties and non-existence give rise to properties and existence.
You had no properties 100 years ago.

Now you do.

There's no thing that has no properties. Imagine an apple with no properties.

>There's no thing that has no properties.
What properties did you have 100 years ago?

>"nothingness" can't exist therefore there was always something
so this is the brainpower of Veeky Forums's brainlets...

Every thing which existed 100 years did not have the properties which define me.

He was a pile of unintegrated molecules.

>Every thing which existed 100 years did not have the properties which define me.
Was something unclear? I asked you what properties you had 100 years ago, but you didn't seem to list any.

The atoms that formed me had properties. They just configured themselves in a certain way.

>He was a pile of unintegrated molecules.
Before the universe became something, it was a pile of unintegrated nothingness.

>The atoms that formed me had properties.
I asked about you, not the atoms.

I didn't exist.

>I didn't exist.
So you didn't have any properties. Which contradicts the statement that "There's no thing that has no properties."

what you refer as "you" is nothing but a collection of atoms in a certain configuration

Except that would be a contradiction because "having no properties" is itself a property. Saying "x didn't exist" is just shorthand for "everything which did exist was not x." It isn't a coherent statement in itself.

>Except that would be a contradiction because "having no properties" is itself a property.
If it is a contradiction and you did not have no properties, then you did have some property, in which case you still haven't listed one. So we're just back to where we were here

>Except that would be a contradiction because "having no properties" is itself a property.
Yet another unexplained claim, it remains unclear why "having no properties" is itself a property.

Well ok, if we're just going to devolve into semantic wankery, then I had the property "I will have properties in 100 years" :^)

Look up the definition of the word property. And not the ones that refer to property in the legal sense.

>there are things that exist that do not have the property of existence
prove me wrong

So why can't nothing have the property of eventually becoming something?

"the property of eventually becoming something" is itself a property. It's something.

here's how this discussion should go:
1) define nothing
2) does/have this 'nothing' exist in the reality?

The existence of time is a prerequisite for the statement to make any sense, and when you invoke the term "nothing," it is implicit that time does not exist.

Nothing is defined as that which does not exist in reality, so you can skip 2) altogether.

>"the property of eventually becoming something" is itself a property. It's something.
The property itself may be something, but no argument has been given as to why a thing 'is' its properties.

Tell me of a thing with no properties.

just because you can't talk about it...

>Tell me of a thing with no properties.
'Nothing'. I've already said this several times. What argument is there for why a thing 'is' its properties?

The moment something exists, it has the property of existence, therefore if something exists it has a property.

Except it does have a property. A contradictory one. We've been over this.

hmm this is pretty persuasive. I'm still not convinced that there are things that exist without the property of existence but I guess that just means that categories are somehow limited and I have no way in which and I also rely on them almost exclusively to understand the world

Once again, repeating a statement does not make it true. It's only contradictory if 'having no properties' is itself a property, which no argument has been given for. We've been over this.

that there aren't things*

Dictionary.com: property: an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing

So you're saying "having no properties" doesn't fit this definition? If not, we can't continue this discussion. Unless you want to tell me how it doesn't fit that definition. .

>So you're saying "having no properties" doesn't fit this definition? If not, we can't continue this discussion. Unless you want to tell me how it doesn't fit that definition. .
If we take for granted that "having no properties" is a property, then there's still no argument for why a thing 'is' its properties. Your argument that "if nothing has a property then it would be something" hinges on this.

I never said a thing is its properties. I only said that any thing that exists has a property or multiple properties. To say that a thing is its properties is just shorthand for that.

>I never said a thing is its properties
Then what did you mean here ? Are you not implying that 'nothing' having a property makes nothing into something? If a thing isn't its properties then it's not clear why this needs to be the case

First off, that post wasn't mine. Secondly, I'm saying that nothing has a self-contradictory property.

It's already a problem when we have to say "nothing has" or "Nothing is" because nothing has no properties.

What is stopping you from making good post? Nothing. Nothing exists

>Secondly, I'm saying that nothing has a self-contradictory property.
What's wrong with that?

>a pile
>of nothingness

Illogical terms shouldn't be used in logical discourse.