Anyone here knows? I'm looking for an answer to this
that cant be answered
P
Because God is a bipolar psychopath
D
I don't know
By who?
Because there's no such thing as nothing. Nothing as a concept technically cant exist. 
The big bang happened.
Humans have been asking this for thousands of years, we still don't know.
Nothing can't exist because nothing is by definition something. It's a paradox created by humans. That's why there's something instead of nothing, because nothing isn't real.
No, it's by definition the opposite of something. The absense of content.
No one here knows, no one anywhere knows. That being said I enjoy Mainlander's theory that the universe is the rotting body of god.
I think i understand now. Something and Nothing depend on each other to exist. Something must have content in order to exist. The nature of nothing is the absense of content. Therefore Nothing can't exist. But by not existing, it exists. Nothing can only exist if there is something else in existence, because if there was not something else, nothing would exist in existence, and nothing cannot exist, it would lead to paradox
Interesting idea
Can there be nothing without something?
No, I just realized it
Sure.
Well, you have Rene Guenon in your portrait, he probably answered that at some point.
Nothing cannot exist, by definition. At the same time, every relative thing is incumbent for its existence on something else. Ergo, unless you want to fall into the problem of infinite regress, you have to posit the existence of something that is not relative and is not incumbent on anything else of its existence, and that something can only be an Absolute and thus existence as such.
Nothing cannot exist, by definition. At the same time, every relative thing is incumbent for its existence on something else. Ergo, unless you want to fall into the problem of infinite regress, you have to posit the existence of something that is not relative and is not incumbent on anything else of its existence, and that something can only be an Absolute and thus existence as such.
I cant stand his books, hes too boring
Maybe you just don't get him. What you asked in this thread is a metaphysical question and there's nobody in the west more qualified to answer such a question than the likes of Guenon and his bygones, like Frithjof Schuon.
He is too repetitive and verbose. That may be by design though as he doesn't want to democratize esoteric knowledge and thinks initiation is necessary. I read some of his stuff and there isn't much concrete stuff there, and he also condemms orientalists and discusses semantics to the point of redundancy
There is no such thing as nothing alone. The fact that nothing is possible alone makes it possible that nothing is forbidden. Thus, nothingness, by itself, forbids itself and requires that it be absent. So something must always exist so that nothingness is possible.
His style is questionable maybe. The guy was a mathematician, not a writer. But his understanding of metaphysics was top notch.
Maybe you should try Schuon, whose writing style was more concise and didn't have a tendency to write endless sentences.
Like i said, nothingness cannot be. At the same time, relativity cannot be absolute, also by definition. Therefore, there has to be an absolute "something" which can only be God.
Maybe you should try Schuon, whose writing style was more concise and didn't have a tendency to write endless sentences.
Like i said, nothingness cannot be. At the same time, relativity cannot be absolute, also by definition. Therefore, there has to be an absolute "something" which can only be God.
I will, thanks
Interesting idea
What do you mean by that?
Good opportunity to whip out Schuon:
"The Contradiction of Relativism" - an essay by Frithjof Schuon
This is the complete text of "The Contradiction of Relativism", an essay by Frithjof Schuon, which appeared in the the journal "Studies in Comparative Religion", 1973 Spring edition (Vol. 7, No. 2)
When we say something is relative or contingent we mean that this something owns its existence on something else, meaning, the object in question is neither absolute nor universal.
Relativity, which is what moderns believe, is inherently contradictory though because relativity, by definition, cannot be absolute, and you cannot have an "infinite" chain of contingencies (read: infinite regress) because infinity in itself is also absolute and not relative. Therefore, the only "logical" alternative is a belief in an absolute and universal existence from which relative existence is derived in the first place.
See, the way moderns conceive reality is that they believe everything is the result of a continuation chain of contingencies, to the point they don't actually believe there's such a thing as being, but only "becoming". Contrary to this there is the view of traditional metaphysics, which state that everything as its origin in an absolute being (which is then being as such, being and of itself) from which relativity proceeds downwards to states that are more and more relative, this hierarchical process being referred to by Guenon as the "great chain of being".
BTW, Plato's cave is a representation of the same idea:
The shadows projected on the wall are the relative entities that make up continence existence, the people fixated on those empty projections being the people stuck in relativity (I.E., normies, NPCs etc).
The shapes used to project those shadows are the "forms" and "archetypes", but outside this cave, which represents relative existence, there is a realm which is that of absolute existence, which is infinite and it's the only true "reality", where as the world of the cave is all an illusion, as the Hindu argue.
Notice how in this analogy relative existences reaches a limit but it never goes as far as fading into an actual nothingness, because that is impossible, for "no thing" cannot, by definition, be a thing.
Last edited:
That is a great point. Thanks for the answer, I will read the essay soon
nothing is nothing.Because there's no such thing as nothing. Nothing as a concept technically cant exist.
The absence of content is something, is what I’m getting at.
The universe exists so I can drink alcohol.
True Story
True Story
high IQGood opportunity to whip out Schuon:
"The Contradiction of Relativism" - an essay by Frithjof Schuon
This is the complete text of "The Contradiction of Relativism", an essay by Frithjof Schuon, which appeared in the the journal "Studies in Comparative Religion", 1973 Spring edition (Vol. 7, No. 2)www.studiesincomparativereligion.com
When we say something is relative or contingent we mean that this something owns its existence on something else, meaning, the object in question is neither absolute nor universal.
Relativity, which is what moderns believe, is inherently contradictory though because relativity, by definition, cannot be absolute, and you cannot have an "infinite" chain of contingencies (read: infinite regress) because infinity in itself is also absolute and not relative. Therefore, the only "logical" alternative is a belief in an absolute and universal existence from which relative existence is derived in the first place.
See, the way moderns conceive reality is that they believe everything is the result of a continuation chain of contingencies, to the point they don't actually believe there's such a thing as being, but only "becoming". Contrary to this there is the view of traditional metaphysics, which state that everything as its origin in an absolute being (which is then being as such, being and of itself) from which relativity proceeds downwards to states that are more and more relative, this hierarchical process being referred to by Guenon as the "great chain of being".
BTW, Plato's cave is a representation of the same idea:
The shadows projected on the wall are the relative entities that make up continence existence, the people fixated on those empty projections being the people stuck in relativity (I.E., normies, NPCs etc).
The shapes used to project those shadows are the "forms" and "archetypes", but outside this cave, which represents relative existence, there is a realm which is that of absolute existence, which is infinite and it's the only true "reality", where as the world of the cave is all an illusion, as the Hindu argue.
Notice how in this analogy relative existences reaches a limit but it never goes as far as fading into an actual nothingness, because that is impossible, for "no thing" cannot, by definition, be a thing.
really interesting stuff...
Has anyone read Heidegger on this?
Because it's over
Yeah ive read his essay What is Metaphysics which discusses the question of nothing yesterday. Great read
anyone else think the big bang theory is a load of bullshit
During his near death experience Howard Storm asked Jesus why did god create us.
At first Jesus gave Howard an answer he couldn’t understand due to it’s complexity if memory serves correct so Howard then told Jesus he couldn’t understand the answer and so basically asked Jesus to dumb it down or what have you to make it more understandable for him.
So Jesus then told Howard to think of the world as god’s garden whereby he placed (ie created) each of us to hopefully come to shine in that garden in our own way.
So if Howard’s NDE was actually proof of Jesus and Christianity being true and valid and not simply a very elaborate dying brain hallucination, then the answer to your question boils down to god needing to create something ie the planet to house we his creations on who are more “somethings” and god simply wanting us to exist and shine and thrive however we can via our own unique personalities and talents however great or small they may be while existing here on this planet in our physical form.
If you want the atheist alternative answer, I believe Matt Dillahunty has also attempted to answer this question numerous times on the atheist experience call in show, the video archive of which can be found on YouTube.
At first Jesus gave Howard an answer he couldn’t understand due to it’s complexity if memory serves correct so Howard then told Jesus he couldn’t understand the answer and so basically asked Jesus to dumb it down or what have you to make it more understandable for him.
So Jesus then told Howard to think of the world as god’s garden whereby he placed (ie created) each of us to hopefully come to shine in that garden in our own way.
So if Howard’s NDE was actually proof of Jesus and Christianity being true and valid and not simply a very elaborate dying brain hallucination, then the answer to your question boils down to god needing to create something ie the planet to house we his creations on who are more “somethings” and god simply wanting us to exist and shine and thrive however we can via our own unique personalities and talents however great or small they may be while existing here on this planet in our physical form.
If you want the atheist alternative answer, I believe Matt Dillahunty has also attempted to answer this question numerous times on the atheist experience call in show, the video archive of which can be found on YouTube.
no idea ok mister
Evolution is bullshit aswell, just a big cope for stupid science bitches
I think it is unknowable.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
