Something Cannot Come Out Of Nothing - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
  • Sign In Register
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Something Cannot Come Out Of Nothing

Debate Information

Great is the circulating idea now that something can come out of nothing. However, there can be no phase by which something can be in between something and nothing because if anything has any reality at all, it inherently is and is the opposite of not. Also, nothingness cannot provide the means for any kind of genesis because such a process for genesis would too be something and not nothingness.
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -  
    There is a bit of a problem with the language: we cannot express something that does not exist and has no meaning with words. When we say "nothing", we really mean something. "Nothing" becomes a real, existing entity, once it has been mentioned and defined.

    When people say about something coming out of nothing, by "nothing" they usually mean some default, null state, rather than "true nothingness". For example, one could envision an infinite black field and call it "nothing" meaning that within that field no objects exist. But it will not be "true nothing", since the field itself is something. So people imply that there is some underlying structure to whatever they are talking about that cannot be erased, some inherent fabric of the world, and "something" is anything that goes over that fabric.

    In this sense, there is no reason for the transition "nothing -> something" to be impossible. It is the easiest to see if we consider the reverse transition: "something -> nothing". Let us assume that "nothing" is an infinite 2-dimensional display filled with grey pixels. Now suppose there are two of the pixels, one of which is white, and another is black - and all the other pixels are grey. Those two pixels slowly move towards each other. As soon as they come together, they will annihilate, producing a single grey pixel. And we get nothing (grey screen) out of something (grey screen + 1 white pixel + 1 black pixel).
    Now consider the reverse: the grey screen gives birth to two pixels, one white and one black, that start moving away from each other. If we assume that this "infinite screen universe" has the "color conservation law", meaning that the sum of all pixels' color values (white = 1; grey = 0; black = -1) is constant, then such a pixel pair generation does not contradict it and can occur spontaneously, similarly to how virtual particles are generated in our Universe.

    Now, in "true nothingness" such events obviously cannot occur. But again, "true nothingness" is not something our language can describe. And many linguists would argue that our language is a direct reflection of our minds, and what we cannot describe in words, we also cannot comprehend mentally. And many philosophers would argue that what we cannot comprehend mentally, cannot exist. Hence, in essence, "true nothingness" is a concept that does not exist in this world from human perspective.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987OppolzerAlofRIAlexOland
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2005 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Totally agree that language here is a problem. Some concept are so abstract that they're hard to clearly define in a universally accepted manner...

    @Aranea

    A guy named Peter Cohen wrote this and I totally agree with his view so here it is:

    "How is it that something exists? Can it be that something can spring from nothing? 

    The glib answer from those of little imagination is to assert that there cannot be nothing, that where nothing exists there is still a god. I assert that that is a good answer for monkeys, not philosophers. It simply avoids the conundrum by refusing to ask how that god exists. Note that I do not refuse the notion that that which most would define as god might exist, I simply assert that one cannot avoid the question of how existence might exist by invoking the notion that god exists as such a god existing is contingent upon the existence of Existence. 

    Obviously something exists. The assertion (I have heard often) that all is illusion misses the point that for such illusion itself to exist, there must be existence. Refusal to entertain the question as a valid question is simply either failure of imagination or fear of the question. 

    My philosophy suggests that it is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. Therefore existence is not derivative. Given that existence cannot derive from nonexistence, it follows that there could not be a condition of nonexistence. There is no such condition of nonexistence. Nonexistence does not exist, ergo, everything exists. Existence exists because it can. 

    It follows that if anything can exist, it must exist.

    This conclusion fits the quantum fluctuation theory of why there is something instead of nothing. Existence exists because it was mathematically unavoidable. No need for a creator here...
    OppolzerZombieguy1987AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen I believe that wholeheartedly. I believe that existence is neither derived from nothingness nor a deity, at least not in the primitive religious sense. Rather, it is infinite, has always been here and always will be here.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  

    @MayCaesar I mostly agree with your view here. I don’t have any points of yours to address in an argument.

  • @Aranea
     Nothing does not dictate direction of motion. All things without assigned cost, or self value enter nothing.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @Aranea ;Infinite only describes limitation by contradiction.

    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    This conclusion fits the quantum fluctuation theory of why there is something instead of nothing. Existence exists because it was mathematically unavoidable. No need for a creator here... Mathematics stipulates a start and end by problem and solution. The idea is a creator does have to always be the solution found at an end, it can be the formation of a consistent problem.

    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @Plaffelvohfen ;

    Quantum physics is simply exploiting the principle of unfinished mathematic time. Time in the physical sense has a geometry that must be synchronized as a pattern with its own order to be scaled smaller. This is not done by just adding a decimal point as some generic form of numerical detail. A dimension of additional area must be mathematically calculated this is then translated formally by geometry with a base value, and maximum value to the existing dimensions of area so that the relationship is numerically rational.

    Something never told by interstation's of physics, time must be accompanied by a directional compass not just motion or it simple does not provide accuracy in detail or direction.


    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • Physics. The compass motion is dependent on velocity.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar ;

    There is a bit of a problem with the language: we cannot express something that does not exist and has no meaning with words. When we say "nothing", we really mean something. "Nothing" becomes a real, existing entity, once it has been mentioned and defined.

    No there is not a problem with language (nothing) = area inside + empty space as mathematic volume. It is a series of translations on value, there is truth, there is whole truth. According to physics there are two forms of time know people that can be used by math, the words match, they do not synchronize mathematically due to motion. Year, and Day.

    The attempt to describe atomic time was not a whole truth set on a rational accuracy of mathematics. Atomic time is partial truth used to give a justification for mathematic corruption in hopes of creating a visual synchronized appearance of uniform principle. It was not successful.  

    To explain the mathematic issue in an English word problem. There is a sun dial, there is a clock, and there is a calendar. Do you want to know how long the day is? How old the day is? What number of day it is? The speed of the day going by? What portion of day it was? Or what portion of the day it will be?


  • OppolzerOppolzer 175 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    It seems that you’re contradicting yourself, stating that nothing = area inside + empty space.

    Empty space is a tautology with false implications. Space cannot be empty. It may contain only virtual or potential particles, but they are something and not the ‘nothing’ we tend to imagine.

    The area inside refers to the amount of area the space contains. As we already know, area can be calculated. Therefore, it is something.

    Nothing doesn’t equal ‘something + something.’
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • Tautology, Empty space to describes mathematic space, not scientific space. the fibers of paper inside a geometric drawing of a square is not relevant to any mathematic truth. Empty space is an unfilled square in geometry, the opposite of solid square. Space is square, time is the mathematic proof, discovered in geometry that proves all square area holds at least one circle as a center point. There is no, NO, n, o, single diameter in square shape. Diameter is sequential.

  • @Aranea ;

    Something cannot come out of nothing. Again simply said you are setting the process of direction to be only one motion, in one direction. Nothing as a state can be filled as well as emptied. Genesis the start/beginning of something, the process of either filling, or a process emptying. A beginning process itself can even be both.



  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 Nothingness is not a state since such a state by default would not exist. Nothingness cannot be filled nor emptied because there is no capacity in nothingness since nothingness does not exist inherently.
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 I get the sense you seem to think nothingness is empty space/a vacuum. This is not the case. Nothingness, in truth, is non-reality. Empty space is still something as there is space and capacity for emptiness. A vacuum is also something because it is a state of some kind and a state is something.
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • DrummerDudeDrummerDude 17 Pts   -   edited February 2019
    @Aranea If a someone has a dark void of nothingness as a heart, then what is its meaning? A meaning is something. Philosophically, that statement is false. Oh wait, no one cares about philosophy, go ahead and mark this as irrelevant. 
    PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
  • @Aranea ;
    Mathematic space does not contain a vacuum, nothingness is a description of distance in area of void told in a conversation which isn't part of a test. A dark void, a bright void, a void which is obscured or unviewable to measure. Again the basic idea is of control over direction from is a constant fact, or truth that is to be understood. Something can not come from nothing, something can enter nothing.
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @DrummerDude I'm not going to flag your comment as irrelevant. Instead, I'm going to refute you. A dark void is still something, as it is a state that has some degree of property.
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 Nothingness cannot have a distance of any kind as distance describes a property, and property is a thing. Also, something cannot enter nothingness because there is nothing to enter. Nothingness is absolute lack.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Aranea ;

    The issue addressed is consciousness of nothing, people simple would no be aware of entering nothing as people would only become aware when nothing could be held, grasped as area. Nothing is not a absolute it is a destination at the end of a scale of human measurement.
  • Darkness was to include DrummerDude into our conversation.
  • @Aranea ;

    Great is the circulating idea now that something can come out of nothing. However, there can be no phase by which something can be in between something and nothing because if anything has any reality at all, it inherently is and is the opposite of not. Also, nothingness cannot provide the means for any kind of genesis because such a process for genesis would too be something and not nothingness.

    Understand this clearly. All that is said is something cannot come out of nothing. This is a limit motion by commitment to direction as basic principle of math. something is not said it cannot enter, it is not said something cannot pass through nothing. 
  • Reality check. please.
    The basic principle is to justify the lack of finishing the formulation of Pi. 
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 I think I might better understand where you're coming from if I ask for definitions. To you, what is the definition of 'nothingness'?
  • @Aranea ;

    It is a self-evident truth at the end of human scale which can describe motion. It is one of a few translations from the math digit zero, as option expression of quality.

    According to the first law of Motion by Isaac Newton nothingness would be described in basic principle as a complete balanced to force. Not an object held there.

     

    The dictionary Merriam-Webster sees it as a quality or state of being nothing.

    Something insignificant or valueless.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothingness

    I hope I am presenting a formidable  discussion.


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2005 Pts   -  
    Just to add information on "nothing", it would appear that physicists just manipulated "pure nothingness" and observed the fallout just 2 years ago. Which would confirm that Nothing is in fact Something, that there is no possible state of "non-existence" (which is what many mean by "nothing" I think).

    Science rocks!!


    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -  
    How do you demonstrate this and prove it? 
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Dee Who are you responding to?
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen If scientists have said this, then they are unfortunately wrong. To manipulate something inherently requires something to manipulate. Nothing cannot be something, because something exists while nothing is that which doesn't exist. Non-existence not being a possible state is a self-evident truth, for that which is nothing is absolutely not real.
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ;If we are talking about physics, all properties of physics have to be something. Anything that is a function or bears relation to anything else is something.

    To your provided definition, I disagree with Merriam-Webster’s definition. Insignificant things are still real as they bear the property of being insignificant. Valueless is largely a vague term as there can be many directions to take with the term.

    In response to you, I present my definition of nothingness: absolute lack. In order to be nothingness, it must absolutely lack all things, including reality. Can we agree on this definition?

  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -   edited February 2019
    @Aranea

    Apologies I meant to address it to you . Your statement is very direct so the question is aimed at this particular claim as in how do you demonstrate your claim to be true?


  • How do you demonstrate this and prove it?  

    By not looking for nothing. Nothing is found by review of what you have already observed. Nothing is the destination of the thing which is not on the list of all found object you have placed before it. Nothing is a math statement.


    By the way Physics allowed, and participated in a manipulation of time by the addition of a post decimal infraction. The mathematic principle of time works because it simplifies the square and circle to two diameters they both share in relationship to degree. The point left open by Newton and Galileo was to translate additional scale dimension of time.
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Dee Since I have made several statements in this string of debate, can you state which claim you're referring to?
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ;-Which statement do you want me to demonstrate and prove?

    -How is nothing found by reviewing what I have already observed?

    -Nothingness is not a destination as a destination is too a thing. Again, nothingness is absolute lack and thus lacks a destination.

    -To your point on the physics and mathematic principles, can you demonstrate how this bears relation to the discourse on nothingness?

  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -  
    @Aranea

    Its a challenge to your original question as in .....Something cannot come from nothing  ......can you demonstrate that to be true 
  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    Scientists are hard-pressed to define the concept. ... The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, has proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all.

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2005 Pts   -  
    Aranea said:
    @Plaffelvohfen If scientists have said this, then they are unfortunately wrong. To manipulate something inherently requires something to manipulate. Nothing cannot be something, because something exists while nothing is that which doesn't exist. Non-existence not being a possible state is a self-evident truth, for that which is nothing is absolutely not real.
    That's why it was in quotes and why they would agree with you here... ;)

    They have manipulated a vacuum, which is what people usually describe as "nothing" ; A space entirely devoid of matter where there are no particles, and nothing to interfere with pure physics. This would support the assertion that "nothing" does not equal "non-existence" because non-existence is an impossible state, not only logically but empirically too...

    People you argue against here, a lot of them use the word "nothing" to mean "non-existence", this would prove them wrong...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen I see. I ultimately agree with this.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Aranea ;

    -How is nothing found by reviewing what I have already observed?

    It is not on your list.

    It will never be on your list.

    The reason why is you are asking me to scientifically prove that zero is an absolute number in math.



  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 I'm not talking about zero. Zero can have other implications in math, especially in specific types of measurement where it does equate to nothingness but rather a median between values.
    Nothingness cannot have any implication or application as it is non-reality.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 Also, zero is applied in various formulae and functions. Unlike the mathematical numerical unit of zero, nothingness cannot be applied in math as there is nothing to apply.
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 Nothingness is only absolute lack. Nothingness does not have properties, is not empty space, is not a void, is not a vacuum, because all those things denote properties and things-all of which non-existence does not have as it lacks all things, including reality.
  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -  
    @Aranea

    If something cannot come from nothing, then where did our reality come from? If it can't come from nothing, then either (the fundamental) reality itself is eternal, or it emerged from something eternal. The only way for our present reality to have an ultimate beginning is when something can in fact come from nothing.
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Dee It is only logical that reality is eternal. The reasoning behind this is that there just isn't a possible way for there to be a transition from non-reality to reality because a) non-reality has no potential to spawn anything and b) such a transition or process would already be something as well.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -  



    You say..... It is only logical that reality is eternal

    How do you demonstrate that to be true?


    . You say .....The reasoning behind this is that there just isn't a possible way for there to be a transition from non-reality to reality because a) non-reality has no potential to spawn anything and b) such a transition or process would already be something as well.

    Again you cannot prove that statement to be true and if so how? 
  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Dee ;
    -Reality is eternal because there’s never been anything else but all-encompassing existence.

    -The proof is in the argumentation itself. I pose these two arguments to you: 

    1. How can nothingness hold the potential to spawn reality when there is no potential in nothingness?

    2. How can there be a transition between two contradictory opposites?

  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -   edited February 2019
    @Aranea

    You say .....-The proof is in the argumentation itself.

    Its not 

    You say .......I pose these two arguments to you: 

    1. How can nothingness hold the potential to spawn reality when there is no potential in nothingness?

    2. How can there be a transition between two contradictory opposites?



    The argument is flawed because from the start I’ve asked you to demonstrate the veracity of your claims you haven’t done so , the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that  your claim is true , for that you have to prove that reality is eternal how do you propose to do that?

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2005 Pts   -   edited February 2019
    @Dee

    If I may, consider this...

    1: It is not possible for existence to derive from non existence. For existence to derive, there must be something for it to derive from and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence.
    Therefore existence is not derivative. Do you agree?

    2: Given that existence cannot derive (or emerge) from nonexistence, it follows that there could never be a condition of nonexistence, that this condition of nonexistence is impossible. 
    Thus, nonexistence does not exist, there is only existence... 

    I do not use terms like "Reality" and "Nothing" here, it's important to distinguish between "nothing" and "nonexistence", or "Reality" and "Existence", they should not be used interchangeably in the context of a philosophical debate. It hinders the process IMO...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 2974 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Thanks for that ......


    You say .......
    1: It is not possible for existence to derive from non existence.

    I don’t know that’s true , I’m asking you and others how do you demonstrate that’s the case?

    You say ....For existence to derive, there must be something for it to derive from

    Demonstrate this to be the case 

    You say .....and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. 
    Therefore existence is not derivative. Do you agree?

    No , I don’t 

    You say .....Given that existence cannot derive (or emerge) from nonexistence, it follows that there could never be a condition of nonexistence, that this condition of nonexistence is impossible. 
    Thus, nonexistence does not exist, there is only existence... 

    Again how do you demonstrate such to be true? 

    In a ....A Universe from Nothing,Laurence  Krauss notes that “Einstein was one of the first physicists to demonstrate that the classical notion of causation begins to break down at the quantum realm.” Although many physicists objected to the idea of something coming from nothing, he observes that “this is precisely what happens with the light you are using to read this page. Electrons in hot atoms emit photons—photons that didn’t exist before they were emitted—which are emitted spontaneously and without specific cause. Why is it that we have grown at least somewhat comfortable with the idea that photons can be created from nothing without cause, but not whole universes?”



  • AraneaAranea 61 Pts   -  
    @Dee ;The reason reality is eternal is because it is impossible for reality to come from nothing. Here I’ll simplify the proof:

    -Nothingness cannot spawn reality because this hypothetical capacity itself to spawn reality would too be a thing, meaning it could not be non-existent. That is an unavoidable necessity.

    ----

    On your point to @Plaffelvohfen, I must add some things:

    -On your point of Krauss' findings, Krauss himself is flat-out wrong. Here's why: We have so much more to learn about our universe, let alone all of the potential of existence. Therefore, the most plausible explanation is that these photons came from an unknown/undetectable source of potential because a photon couldn't arise out of nothingness, that which is not real, because of my above response to you.

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2005 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    ----------- 1: It is not possible for existence to derive from non existence.
    I don’t know that’s true , I’m asking you and others how do you demonstrate that’s the case?

    ??? How can you not deduce that it's true??? The very nature of the concepts make it so... If you do not understand the concept of Existence and Nonexistence, we're gonna have a hard time...

    ---------- For existence to derive, there must be something for it to derive from. 
    Demonstrate this to be the case

    Same as above, basic logic 101. It's like saying : To arrive somewhere, you had to be somewhere else first because arriving implies not already being at the destination..........  

    -----------You say .....and such a something is precluded from existing without the existence of existence. 
    Therefore existence is not derivative. Do you agree? No , I don’t 

    You don't???  There might not be anything to help you then... :/

    In a ....A Universe from Nothing,Laurence  Krauss notes that “Einstein was one of the first physicists to demonstrate that the classical notion of causation begins to break down at the quantum realm.” Although many physicists objected to the idea of something coming from nothing, he observes that “this is precisely what happens with the light you are using to read this page. Electrons in hot atoms emit photons—photons that didn’t exist before they were emitted—which are emitted spontaneously and without specific cause. Why is it that we have grown at least somewhat comfortable with the idea that photons can be created from nothing without cause, but not whole universes?”

    And here you clearly demonstrate you do not understand Dr. Kauss's work, he never uses the term "nothing" in the sense of "nonexistence" as you imply again here. To any physicist worth his while, "nothing" is actually Something... It's a quantum vacuum, a space with no matter, no elemental particle that pure physics could interfere with from within this vacuum. This actual "nothing" is actually a "thing" that exists and can be understood as a field of quantum fluctuations.

    But honestly, at the moment I feel that there is nothing else that I could say that would help make you understand what I'm saying... You seem impervious to some basic concepts of Logic... :/

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch