Philosofags: Why is there something instead of nothing?

philosofags: Why is there something instead of nothing?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1a9FfyuoJ8c
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because nothing isn't a thing that can exist.

There isn't.

before nothing can exist, there must have been something first

I think therefore I am

boxing

good. but stil there is something..

If there can't be nothing, then there must be something.

They're just so oblivious.

no reason why that would be

Because negatives can't be proven.
>Google it

A or not A. Something or not something (nothing). If nothing isn't a thing that can exist, then something must exist.

There are no square circles.

Tryhard edginess

MY NIGGA CORKY

>Some negatives can be proven, making me wrong, so I'm going to call him names.

Negative Synthetic statemements can't be proven.

Give me one example of a negative proven in science. Technical ay?

In quantum physics, there will always be something instead of nothing.

What "something" is can be subjective, after all is nothing actually something? Because at the end of the day what dictates what "nothing" truly is?

You're asking more questions with such a question, not getting any answers.

Science doesn't deal in proofs.

Damn it, my sides-

aw ya i loe the feeling of donald trump rubbing my balls while i make him wet, love the tiny tits too

Detailed as fuck

Nothing can exist before existence

Not sure how to take that. In case it isn't clear though, it's true. Science is always tentative, giving testable explanations based on available evidence.

Can it? And more importantly, will it?

How so? Before implies time, and time is something.

youtube.com/watch?v=1a9FfyuoJ8c
watch some of his other videos they are great

...

>can it?
Clearly.
>will it?
It does all the time.

Time starts with something

No it can't.

i would cork his ass so bad

You're new here.

Everything in science follows "laws", everything is connected and going forward, if something breaks a law, then everything will have to be reconstructed from Α to Ω.
One law says that "negatives can't be proven", that's all I'm saying

false

Nope, it does not. It exists beyond cause and reason, beyond "before" and "implies"
Because "implication" comes from observing in time, etc.

Laws in science are merely what we observe to occur. Theories are what give explanations.
>One law says that "negatives can't be proven"
What scientific law is that?

Nice argument, how long did that dissertation take?

Kork harder

Okay. Show me nothing existing.

lol you need me to explain it to you? Wow, you're dumber than I thought.

"Nothing" has never been and will never be a state of existence. Even before the big bang, there were quantum fluctuations. How did those get there? I don't know. But there certainly wasn't "nothing" before the universe as we know it came to be.

I lost you at "theories are what give explanation"

No reason. Just is.

>Why is there something instead of nothing?
there's usually nothing but you can't be around to see that.

That only serves to prove my point.

Exactly.

There is a thing. Darshmooth. Absence of darshmooth is called Hanjor.

I have defined these things.

Neither of them are real.

We have defined "something" and we have defined "nothing". But "nothing" is not a real meaningful thing.

It's useful for discussing things. It's useful for organizing our thoughts. But it isn't a real thing. Just like defining hanjor as being the negation of darshmooth did not make hanjor a real thing.

Even the absence of atoms between atoms is not a nothing. It is a space. There is a distance between the earth and the moon, and although it is empty(relatively speaking), it nonetheless has dimensions. It is therefore not actually nothing.

Something exists instead of nothing because nothing is not a real thing and something is a real thing.

Look up the difference between theories and laws in science.

Time is made up though

>before existence

Uh, what before?

because God got bored of nothingness and wanted to watch people suffer

-The Bible

Nothing is a state that can exist. The state of nothingness cannot be observed, but the lack of something is observable.

I.E.
There is supposed to be something on table A.
Therefore there is nothing on table A.

There might be stuff hovering above table A, but there is nothing on it.


The reason there is something instead of nothing? The answer that makes sense to me is this; there is no reason.
If there was a reason, then there would have been something.

So there can be no reason that we have something. This is true if you observe time as linear.
It could be that something at the end of our timeline cause the beginning of our timeline in a self contained loop.
We would not be able to observe this phenomena directly, but with math and science we could potentially understand the mechanics of it.
This wouldn't be a reason, in the sense of linear cause and effect, but it would be an explanation for our existence.

Because nothing is relative to something, for there to be nothing there has to be something, for instance, can you have no money if money never existed, we dont have flippydoops because flippydoops dont exist

My country made the word theory.
I know what's up.
I'm not getting what you're trying to say

The term "nothing" is a human concept to determine the absence of a "something", be it physical or otherwise. Everything is, was, and will always be here; humanity, however, has yet to experience it.

I hope this helps

Wouldn't God be something if it existed?

Time may or may not be the first something but time wasn't always something, had to be observed to become something.

If there was nothing, the question would be invalid.

All these retards saying nothing can't exist unless there's something, lmao. Maybe the idea of nothing can only exist if the idea of something exists, but it's not that. OP is asking why is there something (as in literally stuff) instead of nothing (as in just void)

Are you implying that the theory of creation is flawed?

Then you're either trolling or are willfully ignorant.

Nothing

Time is actually made up by us, for us

>theory
The idea of creation is flawed, yes.

A theory is a thought for something not proven, that "could be", not tested in reality.
How can that prove something? I'm lost

Observed and became something

(You)
Which comes from θεωρώ, assuming

It wasn't made up by us, it was observed and given value by us

A theory, when it's proven, it is a fact, not a theory anymore

It's nothing just something u can feel

No.
I'm certain, wiki it.
Time is something made up

Wrong. Learn to science.

Why not? Why does anything have to be or not be anything? Why does it matter?

For sure but time was nothing until it was observed and studied then it became something

i am therefore i think

Wiki it

Time can't be observed though, there is no time, only moving energy

I have.

''' theoretically '''

winnar so farh

Well time is a dimension, are you saying we also made up the 1 2 and 3 dimensions instead of observing and giving them value? If so, I can roll with that argument as well. We are our own Gods.

ive been working on that meme since the Mayan calendar struck 2012

It is its own dimension, it can be observed, just not by humans, who only experience it linearly forward

Why can't I create the reality I really want (a warm vagina).

You win this.
I got confused with our second word, hypothesis.
Damn it, I forgot my language

Your getting near.
Yes

you fags time is running out. we gotta figure this thing out. be serious

You're*

>get off /b
>go outside
>become a normie
>get dick sucked
>die

(You)
Which hypo(under) + thesis(my stance on)

I go outside all the time. I have two jobs, I ran 40 miles last week, I mowed my lawn, etc

And it if you assume this dimension was created by humans and not observed and given value by humans you also must say the first, second, and third dimensions were also created by humans and not observed and given value by humans. Which I suppose is possible but is pretty self aggrandizing

>humans cant observe time

Yeah, what is a clock right?

Because you act like you want pussy.

What is forward and linearly for 1000

I totally agree because possibility, of course

I said they can observe time linearly and forward but cannot observe the dimension fully