Something is eternal.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The statement there is witnessing is not intelligible if all is only one. One can only understand what it is to witness if that is a distinct act as opposed to other acts. Your metaphysic doesn't allow for you to make sense of such a phrase. The total annihilation of meaning from language is an issue for your ontology that you don't seem to have grasped yet.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Dunno i was asking.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Either something is eternal or nothing is eternal.

If nothing is eternal, then something comes from nothing
Nothing is eternal.
Therefore, something comes from nothing.

The claim that nothing is eternal, necessarily leads us to the claim that something came from nothing. Now, this claim is to be frank absurd. Nothing does not have power(i.e.the ability produce effects), it does not have any quality or quantity, no relation, no properties. It is total and utter non-existence. No thing. Saying that it can produce something is to make it something, and thus one cannot consistently claim that something came from nothing. Therefore, something is eternal.

Hi SOTL.
What is the origin of your claims ?
Perhaps we could start at the beginning:

Either something is eternal or nothing is eternal.

How have you become convinced of this, and have you managed to convince any others ?

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You're making the mistake of thinking that nothing is something that has qualities or relations or quantities. It's total and utter non-existence. it is not rational to think that non-existence has the property of being able to produce effects. That's to make it something, and it's incoherent.

I'm not mistaking anything about nothing, I get your whole argument. The point is that we have no examples of nothing to test or examine. In fact there might be no such thing at all. We do not know how this universe came into existence and no one claims it has come from nothing. You in your initial statement say 'If nothing is eternal', right of the bat you have given it a property, which makes it something. You can't have it both ways. There is nothing that can be said about nothing.

Was gonna say something, but: well, don't know nothin.

Gave you a star for the post though !

a reply to: Nothin

Well the origin of the claim comes from reflecting on why something exists at all. I am convinced of the claim either it is the case that something is eternal or it is not the case that something is eternal(i.e. nothing is eternal) because that is a true dichotomy in propositional logic, meaning it's in the form of A or Not A. The only people who would not accept this are those who reject the LEM in this case and that would need some type of qualification. I see no reason to think it wouldn't apply so I find it rational to accept that dichotomy.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Thanks for your reply.
You are free to believe whatever you want.
Left my 'qualifications' in my pants, though: so...
No further questions at this time.

Have a great day !