Can non-existence exist?

[Davidius]

Can we use the laws of Excluded Middle and Contradiction to prove that there must have always been something?

The Law of Excluded Middle: A or ~A.

If "non-existence," or just "nothing," exists, then it breaks the Law of Contradiction. Therefore, "non-existence" must not exist and there must have always been something.

Would this logically prove either A) the eternal existence of God or B) the eternal existence of the physical universe? If my reasoning is correct, in what direction must I go to exclude B as a possibility?

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hey CC,

The Law of Excluded Middle: A or ~A.

OK, if 'A' stands for the term 'existence', then what do you do? In this case, LEM says that there is either existence or non-existence.

Brian

 

[Davidius]

Hey CC,



OK, if 'A' stands for the term 'existence', then what do you do? In this case, LEM says that there is either existence or non-existence.

Brian

I'm not quite following you.

By the way, I'm still awaiting Part 2 on your blog!

 

[Brian Bosse]

I will try to get to part two tonight, and I will repond to your email tonight. Sorry about the dely.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Davidius]

I will try to get to part two tonight, and I will repond to your email tonight. Sorry about the dely.

Sincerely,

Brian

Haha, it's quite all right. Take your time; I don't mean to be demanding. By the way, I still don't fully understand your reply to the OP. Was my reasoning faulty? And why does making A 'existence' cause existence to exist and not exist?

 

[Kenneth_Murphy]

I was a biochemist in undergrad and have always thought about it from the other direction. IE "something can't come spontaniously from nothing".

Based on the laws of physics, if you have nothing and it follows that the nothing is in a state of equilibrium, then that nothing won't spontanously generate something. So for something to have come into being from nothing an external force/agent had to have done something to cause it.

 

[Theogenes]

Nothing is "No thing". And as Martin Luther wrote, "Nothing is not a little something". Jonathan Edwards wrote that "Nothing is what sleeping rocks dream of...". Everything ,OTOH, exists. The question is 'What is it?" Dreams, unicorns, the bogeyman all exist, the question is what are they.
And, in regards to your question about the eternal existence of the universe, we know by revelation that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...."

 

[Davidius]

And, in regards to your question about the eternal existence of the universe, we know by revelation that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...."

Yes, I was just wondering whether it's possible to prove that the universe cannot be eternal either logically or empirically.

 

[Davidius]

I was a biochemist in undergrad and have always thought about it from the other direction. IE "something can't come spontaniously from nothing".

Based on the laws of physics, if you have nothing and it follows that the nothing is in a state of equilibrium, then that nothing won't spontanously generate something. So for something to have come into being from nothing an external force/agent had to have done something to cause it.

I understand what you're saying and am aware of the argument from the laws of physics, but some people circumvent the need for a Creator by asserting the eternality of the universe. Aristotle, for instance, said that since it's impossible to have "nothing" (similar to my own proposition), that, aside from any empirical observations the universe must be eternal. I agree with him that it's impossible to have nothing but believe that God is the eternal Being, not the universe. What I'm wondering is, as I stated in the reply above, whether the "createdness" of the universe can be proven either logically or empirically, since even some scientists believe (from what I hear at least), for reasons which they claim to be empirical, that the universe did not have a beginning.