Can Nothing Exist?

What is your opinion on this?

My opinion is that you're one of the people at this forum, who seem to thrive on nitpicking obscure details of highly questionable relevence to the essence of the existance of .Might I ask Stevo3890, Rrhain, and TechnoCore - What is your position in the evolution vs. creationism debate?(in the non-admin mode)
Moose

Define "nothihg".This seems to me to be a silly question. One way to define nothing is "something" which doesn't have any existance. If that is the defintion then of course not.Here is the oxford definition
noun 1 no thing; not anything. 2 person or thing of no importance. 3 non-existence. 4 no amount; nought. adverb not at all; in no way.In definition 3 you see that kind of nothing can not be definition exist.I think this is a silly, poorly considered question.

by nothing I mean Absouloutly nothing. A true nothing, the kind of nothing that when you try to describe it is not nothing if you know and by the way this topic has massive undertones to the Naturalism vs Creationism debate. unless you are too stupid to see the implications.
And why I can't I abstain from formly saying where i stand because if formly say my position i am forever branded as one thing or another, if i become branded my ideas will not be fully looked at or people will never accept them. Look at the way Creationists are treated by the Athiests here and vice virsa.
As for details, why leave any detail untouched if you do that you are not being thorough. If you do that you cannot give a complete answer. So should I be honored minnemooseus? Or was this some poor attempt at insult?
Sincerely, Me

Well, I don't know where this is going, but if you are sincere in your pursuing open-minded interest I will pursue this thread.I personally don't think there can exist complete nothingness. [earth shattering conclusion, I know]I'd like to hear your response to that.wr/Geno

yeah i agree with that statement

quote:

---

...and by the way this topic has massive undertones to the Naturalism vs Creationism debate. unless you are too stupid to see the implications.

---

I note you use the philosophical term "naturalism" instead of "evolution". Care to comment?This forum is to debate evolution vs. creationism. Naturalism vs. creationism is some sort of side issue.So, what exactly are these "massive undertones"?Stupid Moose

I am too stupid to see the implications.I need a better defintion of what this "nothing" is.You'll have to spell it all out for me.

i don't think evolution really fits in to the big bang, which is the forum i used (Big Bang, Cosmology) as the universe is not alive so i used naturalism (everything happening naturally. If i am mistaken well sorry.As to the undertones to cosmology the scientific study of the origin and structure of the universe. they are not really undertones this Universe is a largely a vacuum and many would argue that a vacuum has nothing in it. I however say that nothing cannot exist.To Creationism versus Evolution If one would argue that nothing existed before the universe, since nothing begets nothing i would say that in effect that person was aknowledging the need for a Creator."This forum is to debate evolution vs. creationism. Naturalism vs. creationism is some sort of side issue."Are we supposed to talk about the universe or Evolution In the Cosmology section of this forum? AS Evolution and Cosmology are different topics It would only be natural to talk about Cosmology in the Cosmology section. What is this some kind of weird test to see if i can Argue. Unless The website I see is completely different than the one you see than I am right.{BY EDIT - To help with readibility, I took the liberty of adding blank lines between what I interpreted to be paragraphs - Nothing else was changed - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-12-2003]

A true nothing, not the absence of matter but simply nothing.
Anyways the word nothing itself is an oxymoron as the word is really something not nothing, so a defination is not going to do you any good.

my belief is that i am getting a headache trying to figure out what you guys are on about,lol,oh and dont take this post seriously as its NOTHING important.loforgive my stupid sense of humour.

The operative word for me is "largely". Even if there is only a very tiny amount of something, it cannot be nothing. And, clearly, there is something [not nothing] in the universe. I think this is better because it deals with universal causality, but I don't believe that this would be considered a "creationism versus evolution" question. If you want to discuss causality, I think this could still be useful...Admin?wr/Geno

"many" would be wrong. The vacuum of space has all sorts of fields permeating it. Gravitational and electromagnetic at least.In addtion there is constant flux of virtual particles coming and going in the "vacuum". I guess the conclusion is that there is no nothing.

As I see it, by definition, if there is nothing then there isn't existance. So no, nothing can never exist because the act of existing makes it something. English is not capable of expressing the idea you are trying to get at.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ayup, that's the problem with language. It's only an approximate descriptor.