Start with Nothing

**JesterKK** · 12-14-2011 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Dianeva

There is no assumption that time had something before it. If I used the word 'before', what I meant was the cause. The cause and effect might happen simultaneously. The effect might even be eternal. That doesn't defeat my argument.

That's entirely distorting the concept of cause and effect. Cause and effect cannot happen simultaneously by definition. Einstein even assumed that causation could not be violated in his special relativity - causes must come before effects in all cases.

Yes existence is arbitrary and it must be arbitrary because it cannot be logically caused, but is that really something people didn't already know? The argument might fall down when it comes to the second point: 'anything has a cause'. You can't say that and then go onto say it can be traced back to something which doesn't have a cause/to something which doesn't exist. If it is the case that everything has a cause, then there is no 'first' cause, there can only be infinite regression. The very assertion that nothingness/non-existence can exist is a clear contradiction.

My point is that assuming things exist and those things require causes, there must be infinite regression - no first, no before. To talk about what comes last or after we have to assume everything has an effect which is another argument for another day I guess.

**Alric** · 12-14-2011 08:49 PM

It is similar to the idea that stuff can't come out of nothing. People say that because stuff can not be created or destoryed, the universe must have always existed. However, there are theories that the net energy of the universe is 0. So that the universe is basically made of nothing, that was split apart into positive and negative energies. So if you follow that, all the universe can come from nothing, but doesn't violate any rules of physics. Nothing was created or destoryed in the creation of the universe, it only changed forms.

It could be that the first cause is that nothing is fundmentally unstable, because absolute nothing shouldn't exist. And because of that events took place that eventually created the universe. You could say that there must be a reason 'nothing' is unstable and thus a cause for it, but since you are talking about something that can't exist from our view point you might never get an answer.

**Arra** · 12-15-2011 03:21 AM

People express problems with my argument, I explain why they're wrong, and then someone else (sometimes the same person) comes back with the exactly same problem, and I have to explain it again. If you get my explanation and tell me what's wrong with it, that's one thing, but it's like my explanation is completely ignored. So I don't know why I'm bothering explaining now, when it's probably just going to happen again a few posts later.

Originally Posted by JesterKK

That's entirely distorting the concept of cause and effect. Cause and effect cannot happen simultaneously by definition.

What about "as a logical consequence of"? An effect can't come before a cause while dealing outside of time.

Originally Posted by JesterKK

Yes existence is arbitrary and it must be arbitrary because it cannot be logically caused, but is that really something people didn't already know?

As I said in the OP, I did suspect it was pretty obvious. It was just something I'd never consciously realised before, so I thought it might be worth bringing up.

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The argument might fall down when it comes to the second point: 'anything has a cause'. You can't say that and then go onto say it can be traced back to something which doesn't have a cause/to something which doesn't exist. If it is the case that everything has a cause, then there is no 'first' cause, there can only be infinite regression.

Show me exactly where I said that everything has a cause. Can't find it? Didn't think so...

Originally Posted by JesterKK

The very assertion that nothingness/non-existence can exist is a clear contradiction.

No, it isn't. As I brought up before, it only seems to be because of our language. Actual non-existence is entirely possible.

Originally Posted by Alric

It is similar to the idea that stuff can't come out of nothing. People say that because stuff can not be created or destoryed, the universe must have always existed. However, there are theories that the net energy of the universe is 0. So that the universe is basically made of nothing, that was split apart into positive and negative energies. So if you follow that, all the universe can come from nothing, but doesn't violate any rules of physics. Nothing was created or destoryed in the creation of the universe, it only changed forms.

It could be that the first cause is that nothing is fundmentally unstable, because absolute nothing shouldn't exist. And because of that events took place that eventually created the universe. You could say that there must be a reason 'nothing' is unstable and thus a cause for it, but since you are talking about something that can't exist from our view point you might never get an answer.

The problem I have with this post is that you seem to be assuming that the laws of physics and other 'rules' already apply 'before' (bad term to use) any existence happened.