File: image.jpg (139 KB, 640x480) Image search: [Google]

139 KB, 640x480

Sup

>>674709016
Wat it do. Got any ideas?

>>674709108
I Kant answer

>>674709667
cool story, bro

what if being is necessarily existent?

We're in a computer simulation
God is the intern that created us
he's probably a fag

>>674710629
Illuminating. Thanks for your contribution, anon.

>>674708754
>this understanding of "existence" and "time"
Read up, son. I'd start with Heidegger.

Philosophical nothingness is internally inconsistent, and therefore necessarily does not exist. Therefore necessarily something exists.

What is the smallest particle.. and what is it made of? Where does the universe end... and what's there?

ITT: sophists and dilettantes

>>674708754
>My high school friends suggest I should stop asking questions and just party.


Fixed it for you OP.

>>674711717
Ad hominem detected

Think about it as multiverse.
Everything exists somewhere even total emptiness. Each possible way of existenc exists.

File: image.jpg (75 KB, 500x779) Image search: [Google]

75 KB, 500x779

Why is it that your nose is so very large and sweaty?

>>674708754
>Krauss recently tried (and failed) to address this question
Yes, in a book targeted for non science literate people.

>trying to find proof of anything in pop-sci books

>>674711845
I'm saying nothing of argumentation. I'm identifying the speaker. You can't apply argumentum ad hominem to something not engaging in argumentation.

>>674710629
>>674711966
Ugh why didn't that inconceivably gigantic fag program in actual cool shit like this?

>>674711388
Being and Time?

>>674708754
Actually there is really no such thing as nothing.
There are molecules and radiation of decaying things packed in everywhere. I think the real question would be is there a condition where there could be nothing? Would that mean it's an alternate dimension if there truly was a small pocket of nothing. Like blackholes are totally packed full of stuff why would stuff all gather in one location maybe there is a lot of nothing and it's slowly closing in on everything and crushing it all into blackholes, I'm not sure. It makes me really uncomfortable to think about how big the universe is and that it could potentially have an end to it because it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't think God is really a bad answer at least it's rational to some degree compared to some imaginary boundary where nothing exists.

File: adhominem.png (36 KB, 547x225) Image search: [Google]

36 KB, 547x225

>>674712244
You're literally made ad hominem.

>what is ad hominem

>>674711851
Emptiness isn't non being.

>>674712146

>implying he's even on the right track about an answer to the question

File: image.jpg (60 KB, 400x322) Image search: [Google]

60 KB, 400x322

>>674712458

>>674712581
Not saying he's right, but he's got a point.

True emptiness could well hold (empty) force fields, which could be argued to still not be non-existence.

>>674712389

>Actually there is really no such thing as nothing.

No shit, that's why it's called nothing- it's not any thing. The God hypothesis isn't a bad one, and I'm inclined to think it's definitely on the right track, but I still have a lot of questions.

>>674712581

Stupid motherfuckers think smart motherfuckers are retarded motherfuckers.

>>674712376
Good start, ya. I'd recommend getting a companion piece like the Dreyfus one.
>>674712410
>of an argument or reaction
I'm referring to neither of those. I'm merely stating fact.

>>674712814
Well since I haven't read it yet and you presumably have, give me a brief synopsis of what Heidegger has to say on the matter. Are there things that exist necessarily?

Listening to this lecture right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZtkdGyPWwA

>>674711559
Idk but I'm asking why there is anything.

File: 1451183133371.png (43 KB, 195x209) Image search: [Google]

43 KB, 195x209

>>674712255
It is, people just don't look into it, or made up their minds that our world and our 5 mundane senses are all there is.
There's plenty of paranormal shit that's happened but can't be explained, look it up

File: ckpp.jpg (48 KB, 620x616) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 620x616

>>674712717
>No shit, that's why it's called nothing- it's not any thing.
That's the thing though there are 'things' everywhere. From solid matter to gases and vapours, then theres outerspace which isn't empty at all there is background radiation. Like to get a space with nothing in it you'd need an ultra dense object I'm not even sure what kind of solid material and then super cool it to like absolute zero, and even then the solid material is going to probably decay and release particles into that space with "nothing" in it meaning it's full of things that are so tiny they are practically undetectable but still things and not nothing.

>>674713572
True. You seem to be limiting "things" to physical objects though. When we ask, Why is there something rather than nothing? we are asking about the explanation for all things- physical things (quarks, planets, etc) and non physical things (numbers, properties, relations, sets, etc).

There could still be things even if there were no physical objects.

>>674712984
Our lack of a true understanding of what it even really means to "exist" makes the question inherently erroneous. Necessity implies intentionality of some sort, and intentionality isn't an a priori to Being, rather its the reverse. I think we should be asking "why is there Nothing appearing as Something?" personally.

>>674708754
>something that always exists (God).
sage

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed."

>>674714315
Necessity does not imply intentionality. Wtf? If numbers exist, they exist necessarily. Yet they are mindless.

Also, nothing appearing as something? You're misusing the word Nothing here. By nothing we mean not anything- universal negation.

>>674714582

That's for closed systems, anon. Matter began to exist at the big bang.

>>674714756
>Energy
>Not matter

>"Energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Something caused the energy to be created although it's impossible to understand.

>>674713991
>There could still be things even if there were no physical objects.
I'm not so sure about that. We have immaterial things because we are material beings. I use to think of space as a vacuum and didn't believe someone when they told me nature hates a perfect vacuum but there is stuff there and it pushes against each other like an ocean full of water, probably more complicated I don't know but if there is something everywhere then the second there is a spot with nothing something is going to push into it, if stuff pushes into it something else moves in to push against it and if there was nothing it'd all push out into nothing, is there really enough gravity to hold it all together? That doesn't seem likely to me. Nor magnetism. If we can't escape materialism than abstract things existing means little because they wouldn't exist without material things to create them. I don't know this shit bothers me I'm just going to say the answer is God.

>>674714929

Nigger, they're the same thing. Energy is just mass multiplied by the speed of light, squared.

>>674714630
What "necessarily" allowed for the existence of numbers qua numbers? And Social Constructionism, influenced by Heidegger, contends with the notion that Mathematics (and thereby our understanding of "numbers" altogether) is merely a socially produced phenomena that has no inherent existence.
Lastly, my usage of "Nothing" wasn't "correct"
or "incorrect". Mentioning a something appearing as a phenomena that is really nothingness (think virtual reality) is referring to the Lacanian "non-all". As I implied earlier your definitions were flawed, and I believe Heidegger would agree, which is why I suggested my question in turn.

>>674715123
Energy and matter is NOT the same thing you retard. Google it.

>>674713512
Too much thinking. I think I'll just go on /x/ and RP instead.
>>674715123
>>674715186
dis gon b gud

>>674715123
mass is the matter lol

>>674715269
>>674715282
You're thinking of E=mc2

This equation is describing the RELATIONSHIP between energy and mass, not defining energy. Retards.

>>674715042
You keep treating nothing like a thing. "...the second there is a spot with nothing something is going to push into it."

This is a reifying nothing. Nothing has no parts or properties, it can't have something "push into it".


Also

>If we can't escape materialism than abstract things existing means little because they wouldn't exist without material things to create them.

That's not how abstract objects work. Abstract objects don't depend on any physical object for their existence. Think of the number 2. 2 is an abstract object. What's its physical correlate? There isn't one. You can have two of one thing, but those things are not two, you just have a quantity of those things and that quantity is 2. It's an abstraction. It's real, it exists, but it isn't physical.

>>674715186
>>674715269
>>674715282
While it is true that MATTER 'can' be created or destroyed, ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

>>674715269
>>674715282
While it is true that MATTER 'can' be created or destroyed, ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

>>674715124
I'll read whatever you can recommend since I'm into this. Never heard of "Lacanian non-all". Lastly, your usage was incorrect as Nothing in this Leibnizian sense is universal negation.

>>674715681
>>674715570
>>674715282
hmm yes yes quite. and your rebuttal sir?

>>674715394
I like how they ignored this.

>>674715186
When it comes to conservation laws they are. Learn some basic physics, you uneducated fuck. Also, are you seriously argument that thermodynamic laws are metaphysically binding? Are you daft?

>>674715779
"Less Than Nothing" by Slavoj Zizek is good for a better understanding of this whole situation. A reading of Plato's "Parmenides" may also help. Also, I realize what you mean by Nothing, I'm suggesting an alternative understanding of "Nothing", as a "universal negation" that may appear indeed as something, when in reality it is not.

>>674715783
>>674716010
not that anon but impressive internet battle won today m'lady

>>674716089
You're missing the whole point of me posting..
>"Energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Science has no way of explaining how the first instance of ENERGY was created. Something "supernatural" created it. It's logical that energy was necessary in order to create matter. The Big Bang doesn't explain why energy just all of sudden appeared in universe of nothing and coldness.

>>674716089
https://www.quora.com/If-matter-is-never-created-or-destroyed-where-did-it-all-come-from

>>674716163
Continental philosophy? Cringe. I'll read it because you recommended it. But cringe.

File: beavis.jpg (129 KB, 500x500) Image search: [Google]

129 KB, 500x500

>>674715541
>This is a reifying nothing. Nothing has no parts or properties, it can't have something "push into it".
Of course it would, if there was nothing it would not be able to resist the force of nature and would become something the second it comes into contact with something that exists. You're trying to tell me there is an insoluble solute in the chemistry of the universe and that's just does not seem like it's possible everything wears down and decays like it's involved with a solvent. The only ways I can even think of that happening is like I said before a dense radiation shield, extremely cold temperature, and possible if there was a pocket of anti-matter that is neutral with whatever matter is coming into contact with it but even then it's still a thing and will react with some time of matter it comes into contact with eventually because there has to be a lot of it to hold it all the matter. If there was nothing it'd have to be so large like imagine a disc like a flat circle- pretend that's the universe. "Nothing" would have to be around ALL of the observable and known universe and in all that space there'd have to be nothing whatsoever that reacts with it at all in anyway which means if it doesn't react with it, it'd give way and let it pass.

I'm not going to argue about abstract things because real things create abstract things and as soon as real things disappear so does the abstract, real things can exist without the abstract but the abstract can not exist without real things. Consequently because of that I believe abstract things are of no consequence.

>>674708754
God created everything, quit endlessly questioning yourself out of the perfect answer. If you want to go about the how just ask him, the answer he gives you is the answer you need to know

File: 1222610094508.jpg (100 KB, 430x542) Image search: [Google]

100 KB, 430x542

>Metaphysics

fucking kek. might as well address astrology.

>>674716538

and who created God?

File: image.jpg (69 KB, 600x703) Image search: [Google]

69 KB, 600x703

>>674708754
We are the retarded Norn strain from the latest version of Creatures.

>>674716328
I see what you're saying. It's hasty to automatically jump to that "thing" being divine, but at least a theist can make the case that God exists necessarily, and it comports well with the evidence. That explanation has SOME explanatory power and scope.


What if being isn't minded, though?

>>674716664
>God's God

Who actually knows, all it shows is that something created all this existence.

>>674716476
Continental Philosophy is patrician. Anglos are unfortunately either too autistic or too dumb to understand it, thus leading to the Analytic tradition.

>>674716635
I bet you've browsed r/atheism before

>>674708754

For something to exist, 'something' must have always existed.

The universe might collapse, but something existing is eternal. There is no end in our dimension, there never will be, its like infinity.
It hurts my head.

>>674716635
Oh look. Somebody that thinks the metaphysics we're talking about here is the same "metaphysics" bullshit Deepak Chopra does and doesn't understand Western metaphysics is the entire foundation of all science and knowledge generally.


Look, u gaiz.

>>674716664
Why does God need a creator when your imagined world doesn't?

>>674716664
Asking who created God is like asking an only child what his sister's name is- you have to fundamentally misunderstand what the person is in order to genuinely ask the question.


If God exists, God does not depend on some other thing for its existence. It's the necessary existence vs contingent existence distinction.

>>674708754
I would take your high friends advice. Our logic is fucking shit, hence there being no attainable answer to any of that. Maybe we'll find some way to not think like the slightly higher chimps we are in the future, but at the moment, go smoke a bowl and wait for death.

>>674717160

thats exactly my point faggot. if God doesnt need a creator then you could say the same about the universe. and viceversa all you want.

so instead of injecting your God(s) hypothesis into the fucking conversation, why not just say "we dont know".

why the fuck do you faggots have to inject your very cultural religions into this shit?

>>674716926

That could mean a lot of things. Philosopher Bede Rundle argued what this but with a twist: nothing exists necessarily (meaning: all things that exist could fail to exist) but necessarily something must exist.

I don't find it compelling but your ambiguous post is consistent with his thesis, and I figured I'd share it.

>>674716736
Something as immortal as that thing classifies as divine in my opinion.

>What if being isn't minded, though?

What exactly do you mean?

>>674717462
> if God doesnt need a creator then you could say the same about the universe.
So because something doesn't need a creator that means it can't exist? You think that is true for the world you live in (eg everything has a natural explanation) why can't it be true for God?

>why not just say "we dont know"
You are arrogant to use the word "we". I know, you don't. You spend your time looking for an answer I am giving you, but you reject the truth because it doesn't suit your delusions about what is logical.

>why the fuck do you faggots have to inject your very cultural religions into this shit?
There are no religions, there is only truth and I believe what is true. If you don't believe in God you are an idiot given the overwhelming evidence

>>674717551
God is minded. You and I are minded. If God is the sole nature of reality (being), as Christians and other theists have argued, then being is minded.

I'm asking: What if being is not minded? I'm not saying God does or does not exist, I'm suggesting being could be something not minded, and maybe God participates in it kinda like how we participate in time.

File: alan-watts.jpg (84 KB, 360x432) Image search: [Google]

84 KB, 360x432

>>674708754
Only a massive faggot wouldnt get the universe and meaning of existence.
Listen to everything from Alan Watts young padawan. He even makes sense of Relativity and quantum mechanics.

Tldr: everything is one but your mind can just see your tiny perspective tricking you into thinking you are faggot Op

>>674717796
Holy shit, this is gold. Where do you live? Never met a
such a narrowminded person in my country, please be american