Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Non-existence exists

#11
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Feb 8, 2017 05:56 PM)Yazata Wrote:
Quote:If non-existence did not exist then nothing could possibly exist.

Why?

My 'why' would be......why do many people insist there once was a nothing state? You know I'm not really sure what Ostro is aiming for with the OP. I may be wrong but I think he's a believer in a deity, which would invite a query of where was God when there was nothing at all? The doughnut hole is just as good an answer as any, now that I think about it.  Wink
Reply
#12
Ostronomos Offline
(Feb 8, 2017 05:56 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Feb 5, 2017 06:12 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Non-existence exists

Limited and relative kinds of non-existence certainly exist. Otherwise holes and absences of particular things would be impossible. There are no hundred dollar bills in my wallet. Donuts have holes in them.

The phrase 'non-existence doesn't exist' is more plausible when we are talking about total non-existence, the absence of anything and everything. It does seem self-contradictory to think of total non-existence as a void, as a peculiarly dark and empty kind of existence.

Quote:If non-existence did not exist then nothing could possibly exist.

Why?

For the reason that negations must exist in order for an instantiation to exist. The opposites must coincide in order to make possible distinction of being. Being is what anything real is, as it is. So opposition distinguishes being from nothing. If there were nothing but nothing, nothing could possibly be. If there were nothing but something, in other words, non-distinction, nothing would be that something, due to non-distinction of being.
Reply
#13
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Feb 8, 2017 07:27 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: For the reason that negations must exist in order for an instantiation to exist. The opposites must coincide in order to make possible distinction of being. Being is what anything real is, as it is. So opposition distinguishes being from nothing. If there were nothing but nothing, nothing could possibly be. If there were nothing but something, in other words, non-distinction, nothing would be that something, due to non-distinction of being.

To argue that nothing is the opposite of something, all the while insisting nothing is something, seems somewhat paradoxical.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  No 'I' in Existence Ostronomos 1 368 Jun 9, 2018 04:59 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)