Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> >  > David:Nothingness is the key point. Pure nothingness is an absolute void. And the discussion has to start there. Pure nothingness is an acceptable concept. There can be such a non-existent nothing.[/i] >  > George:To be is to exist, so you are saying here: "There can exist such a non-existent nothing" which is clearly a self-contradiction.-That is because it is difficult to find the words to fit the meaning, but you have done that below: >  > [i]DT: On the other hand, as Leibniz pointed asked, why is there anything?[/i]  >  > George:Perhaps because pure nothing cannot exist. Only a physical nothing - a void - can be said to exist. -Exactly, a &apos;physical nothing&apos; is a good way of expressing the concept.- >  > [i]Each effect must have a cause, but as stated by Aquinas: What does not have existence on its own must have a cause. Hume&apos;s attack on this principle of causality is entirely refuted in Feser&apos;s book.[/i] >  > Geeoerge: In that case I&apos;m with Hume on this. Allow me to doubt Feser&apos;s reasoning.-Please read Feser before doubting. >  > [i]DT: Your description of equal amounts of positive and negative energy equalling zero is correct, but it is zero, not absolutely nothing and the whole equation is something. It represents two types of existing energy, not nothingness.[/i] >  > George:But the point is that the two types of energy do not exist until they separate out. They break the symmetry.-You are still using potential quantum effects of this space time in your theoretical approach to this. Do you really think this spacetime existed before the Big Bang? >  > [i]DT: I am saying there must be the total absence of energy to get rid of my insistence that something eternal has to exist.[/i]  >  > George: Once again "eternal" means "for all time", and we are discussing a state where time does not exist. So your introduction of this concept is invalid.-This is just word games. I am proposing a timeless energy had to be present before the big bang, as a causative agent of the Big bang.