Logically, nothing should exist.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rayliikanen
Posts: 134
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 10:31 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Rayliikanen » August 23rd, 2016, 11:43 am

I have given a possible/logical solution to the question posed here: Logically, nothing should exist. The idea of Nothing is just that--an Idea. Better to start by analyzing this simple Idea--as that state that preceded all more complex states (including the concept people entertain/have of God as a Supreme Being). My argument is that all things begin with the Absolute Void, but the Absolute Void is not simply a Nothing from which only Nothing can follow. It is a state of Absolute Mind in its simplest possible state of Being. From this simplest possible state all more complex states of being proceed into being. How this is so entails accepting the premise however that Absolute Mind is the beginning of all things, and that this ultimately most simple of all possible states follows through to the most complex state defined by our present reality through a causal process, or series. The evidence of this if anyone is to argue Where is the evidence? is in what cosmologists have determined already in their Big Bang model of the early universe, proceeding from a singular point of infinite density and zero space time. The infinite density arose through a preceding causal series that grew in intensity from what we could call a zero state that we can associate with the Absolute Void and followed through this causal series to its most intense possible state that we can associate with the Infinite density. From this process also Absolute Mind followed through to its most complex and intense state of Being, as did Space, Time, Mass or the Substance of the physical universe, as well as Mind, or Consciousness. We have consciousness because the Absolute Mind that created/ordered the universe into our present reality obtained from its simplest possible state of Being to its most complex state of Being as Absolute Mind.

This is the briefest outline I can provide of my theory. The causal process can be explained in a little bit more detail, but recently I gave my condensed explanation to someone who actually said they can understand it, and he is not philosophically informed.

The solution is simple and thinking it through (it took 40 years) it did not actually drive me mad, though some might argue I am mad for even trying to provide a logical answer to the question of Leibniz: Why is there something, rather than nothing?

User avatar
Reeatch
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: February 11th, 2018, 2:51 am

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Reeatch » February 11th, 2018, 2:55 am

You are right. Logically, nothing should exist. Existence is the ultimate paradox. Anyone who claims otherwise or tries to debate this in any way has a terrible brain.

User avatar
Rayliikanen
Posts: 134
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 10:31 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Rayliikanen » February 11th, 2018, 10:06 pm

If God equals the Absolute Void at the beginning then this solves the problem of Who made God? The words in Revelation are: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." This verse describes a movement that has taken place. God is the unconditional, infinite Void at the beginning ... the Alpha ... the first (First Cause) ... and the movement begins with the Consciousness/Thought of God in His movement to becoming the Omega, the last, and the end (toward which this movement is heading). People read scripture with either/or thinking. Or, Black and White thinking. The truth is we need to think critically, or philosophically, and analyze what our abstract words mean ... such as the 'abstract' word 'nothing'. If we attempt to visualize this 'nothing' at the beginning of the movement, or put otherwise, at the end of the supposed 'infinite' regress ... then we have not simply 'nothing'. We have an Absolute state that we cannot place any arbitrary limitation on. Our finite minds cannot grasp the totality of that which is infinite. Hence, this makes room for the Idea of God at the beginning of all things. Getting to the 'big bang' ... this is part of the movement that is still taking place. It's an effect in need of an explanation ... it is not the 'complete' explanation. It's up to philosophers, or critical thinkers, to logically comprehend the movement--and an attempt to do just this was made by Hegel, in his 'Science of Logic' as a response to Immanuel Kant's First Antimony. But unfortunately, Hegel fell short. He only describes in his Science the possibility of a beginning where God exists in the form of what he calls the 'pure immediate' but he also uses the word 'absolute', and he also calls this Void at the end of the regress 'a bare beginning as such'. He uses more colorful language as well: "the beginning contains this characteristic, that it flies from and transcends not-being, as its opposite." This is where Hegel states, philosophy begins. He has tackled the same question posed for this thread, and has offered I believe, a logical response to it. What else does Hegel say: "... in any science a beginning is made by presupposing some idea--such idea being next analyzed ..." as in this thread we are analyzing the idea of 'nothingness'. Where does Hegel go with it, using other words: "Were we too to observe this procedure [this analysis of nothing, for instance] we should have no particular object before us, because the beginning of thought, must be perfectly abstract and general, pure form quite without content ..." and "So far, there is nothing: something is to become. The beginning is not pure nothing, but a nothing from which something is to proceed; so that being is already contained in the beginning."

So much for Hegel. Where Hegel failed to answer Kant is that he did not tie in this simplest of possible beginnings to the complex reality that we now experience. Kant demanded a synthesis where the premise leads to the conclusion necessarily. Hegel has the most logical of beginnings. How can we lead from Hegel's beginning to our present state of complexity? Follow the method prescribed by Kant, and logically, it is possible, only philosophers haven't done this--they have largely misunderstood Kant.

User avatar
Vivek7
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: August 3rd, 2017, 4:07 am

Re: Logically, nothing should exist.

Post by Vivek7 » February 11th, 2018, 11:21 pm

Both theists and atheists suffer their own limitations and both cannot transcend their boundaries of understanding truth. The question from where God came is irrelevant. Both time and space are kinds of measurements or physical entities and our logic is built around these peripheral concepts. To understand one has to go beyond what is known and what is seen. Is it possible to go beyond all the dimensions we have set against an object? I doubt whether human brains can understand the universal truth Maybe we are bubbles and go burst prior to reaching the summit of truth.

Post Reply