Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/ 7/04 2:31pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Imagining" on 05/ 4/04 9:43am
>
>>
>>That is illogical. A sea of energy is not the
>>complete absence of everything, for it does not
>>contain the absence of a sea of energy, physical laws
>>etc.
>
>The complete absence of everything is not nothing
>either I'd like to point out, because "the absence of
>everything" is in and of itself a something.
That does not appear logical. Certainly my definition was more accurate than yours, however.
>>My point is this: if you redefine the word
>>"nothing" to mean a seething froth of wormholes, black
>>holes, and fluctuating energy states, then yes
>>something can come from nothing.
>
>If you define it to be the absence of everything you
>can also get things, namely something
Such as?
>>But to say that this
>>violates the belief of theists like myself in ex
>>nihilo nihil fit would be making the fallacy of
>>equivocation, since that is not what they mean by
>>"nothing." In the context I am using it (especially
>>in ex nihilo nihil fit) nothingness is a
>>complete absence of anything, including tiny
>>wormholes, black holes, fluctuating energy etc.
>
>So if you were to group all of your "nothing"
>together, it would be the null set which in turn can
>be used to get every natural number that you are
>desirious of obtaining.
I don't think that is logically possible. To derive natural numbers you need, among other things, mathematicians, numbers, etc.
>Would you care to quarrel with THAT example of
>something coming from nothing?
Yes. It did not come from literal nothing.
Again, I caution against using the fallacy of equivocation. A seething froth of wormholes, black holes, fluctuating energy etc. is not what is meant by "nothing" in the phrase ex nihilo nihil fit.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 