was there once a point in time (or before time) where LITERALLY

I don't know. Maybe the universe is infinite. Maybe the Big Bang, and the current expansion of the universe as a result of it, is just a cycle, and the universe will eventually contract, then expand again.

Maybe it's finite, and the universe will continue to expand until the net tempeature of the entire universe is absolute zero, and all motion ceases.

There are many possibilities.

>>8222368
Actually there aren't.

We know the geometry of our universe, and that tells us that it had a beginning and it will end in heat death

>>8222371
Most of what we know breaks down at either end of the spectrum

>>8222361
How exactly can "nothing" exist?

File: 1468788069223.jpg (104KB, 782x960px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 782x960px

>>8222378
pretty sure nothingness is the default

>>8222377
The existence of dark matter tells us that matter pops up in and out of existence spontaneously out of nothing. It doesn't violate the conservation of energy because the total energy of the universe is always 0.

>>8222384
Nothingness is nonexistence, it can't exist since it's a lack of existence, my dude.

>>8222394
Have you been smoking heroin again son

>>8222399
Check the definition of the word.

no because there is no such thing as a soul

>>8222400
you're saying nonexistence isnt possible

>>8222403
He's saying nonexistence can't exist, because it's paradoxical

>>8222405
this.

>>8222405
>>8222412
>nonexistence isnt possible and the word is therefore literally meaningless because we've misinterpreted its definition

cool

File: 1468963614312.jpg (17KB, 480x318px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x318px

>>8222405
>The absence of existence isn't possible

>>8222403
>>8222405
There are degrees of nothingness.

The nucleus of an atom is only 10% of the mass of the atom. What is the other 90%?

>>8222415
Cena is laughing at your reading comprehension.

>>8222415
You're misinterpreting this. Here, this guy provides a well-thought answer:

https://www.quora.com/Is-non-existence-an-impossible-state-of-being

>>8222419
"nothing existed" is a perfectly sensible phrase, there's either a language barrier or you're purposely misinterpreting it in order to argue about semantics

"a time where nothing existed"

HERP DERP HOW CAN NOTHING EXIST kek GOT 'EM

>>8222416
Is this true? I've never heard this, only the "99.9999% of atom is empty space" meme. If 10% of the atom is the nucleus, as you say, then the 90% must be in the only other remaining parts, the electrons, which seems absurd. Of course, you're not suggesting nonexistence has mass, are you?

That's not even coherent. How could there have been time before time?

>>8222438
2/10

Nonexistence is paradoxical. Existence stretches infinitely forward and backward through time

>>8222442
>that's paradoxical m8
>here's another paradox
>mines okay though, yours isnt

>>8222427
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8251/nothingness-cannot-be-does-that-imply-something-must-be

>>8222454
I'm talking about in reality, not the imaginary pedantic meme-world of "philosophers" who spend their lives debating about the definitions of words

>>8222454
>In short. An empty existence, a lack of universe, is a contradiction, that "nothing" would be a thing, the only thing, everything.

oh look, morons arguing about definitions of words instead of the actual subject matter

>>8222463
>>8222420

People actually think the universe always existed

top chuckle

>>8222361
If at some point nothing existed, how could anything come into existence from nothing?

>>8222493
how can something always exist?

both answers make no sense

This is all there ever was, nothing is something and thus you cant describe any before with that word as before doesn't make sense as before relies on the concept of time. Each passing second is infinite to non-existence as is any unit of time is simply a sequence of sequential spaces and to compare space with all its laws and properties with the absence of that (including time) doesn't make sense as no absence can be conceived.

>>8222487
Did time come about with the conception of our universe, or did it exist beyond our universe?

>>8222523
who gives a fuck

>>8222499
The negation of the statement "at some point there existed nothing" is "there has always existed at least something". i.e. the universe (taken as the totality of everything) is always non-empty, not "there exists something that always exists"

I'm asking, if at some point there was nothing, and now we have a Universe, how do the "first things" arise from nothing? How can nothing cause anything?

>>8222493
We build models from observations. Evidence points to the universe expanding, and we have no reason to believe it hasn't aways been expanding to some degree, so logically it should've been infinitely small at some point. But it also had to expand into some unseeable, inconceivable medium, so at one point the space it occupied was not the universe, but the outside unknown stuff? Perhaps this isn't the right way of interpreting it, but that's the way most laymen see it, and that's all it takes to make a meme.

>>8222528
Well, that's not a very nice way of approaching these questions. If you don't care, don't answer.

>>8222378
>>8222384
>>8222385
>>8222405
>>8222413
>>8222416
>>8222427
>>8222431
>>8222442
>>8222493
>>8222522
Nothingness doesn't exist. It never has and never will.

Subatomic particles are generated from the vacuum, not from nothing.

The universe coming from nothing is a strawman used by creationists to peddle their shit to retards like the ones I replied to.

Time didn't exist until the big bang happened. So there's no point talking about a before, because that never existed.

File: 1464470471362.jpg (125KB, 460x500px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 460x500px

>>8222571
>Nothingness doesn't exist
>So there's no point talking about a before, because that never existed.

sounds an awful lot like nothingness

>>8222571

If you actually read my post you would find we are in agreeance. Fuckwit,

>>8222571
Mine being >>8222522

>>8222536
This seems obvious to me. How can anyone argue against this logic?

>>8222571
>Subatomic particles are generated from the vacuum, not from nothing
>Time didn't exist until the big bang happened

I'm surprised you weren't able to answer OP's question, because you appear to be very familiar with knowing nothing.

>>8222571
Nothingness is the absence of existence

in other words, exactly what you just described

>>8222596
>this paradoxical existence of things seems obvious to me

yea totally my man

your paradox totally makes more sense than someone else's paradox

You
>>8222571
Me
>>8222595
>>8222522


When I say 'nothing is something' I describe the noting that most conceive a black empty void but note it is something as their void still contains many of the properties of space and in fact has to for them to even conceive it and describe it.

If nothingness (the absence of existence) isn't possible then what is the universe expanding into?

checkmate atheists

>>8222626
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_9ZR2I0_w

Imagine me, standing in front of you and talking. You can describe me and my presence there pretty easily. But then I walk five meters away. It's difficult to describe the point in space that I left; only that I am not there anymore.

That's a fault of language, though, to be imprecise and unable to properly describe absence. It is also because we aren't usually conceiving of this true absence when we say "nothing," but of an apparent absence instead.

>>8222647
thanks for proving my point

>>8222536
>I'm asking, if at some point there was nothing, and now we have a Universe, how do the "first things" arise from nothing? How can nothing cause anything?
Spontaneous, acausal event. This only seems implausible because most of the time shit you can observe doesn't just pop into existence without cause.

>>8222626

It's expanding infinitely within a finite space.

>>8222671
How can an event arise if there is nothing there?

If you have never observed anything popping into existence for no reason whatsoever, how do you even know that that is possible?

File: laugh1.jpg (226KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x667px

>>8222371
>We know

>>8222402
if nothing has an 'exclusive soul'... then eVeRyThInG must have...

>>8222571
Are you stupid? I'm agreeing with you...
My argument is:
"Nothing" cannot cause anything to exist.
We live in a universe where things exist.
Therefore there cannot have been a situation previously where literally nothing exists.
For, if there were, you would be stuck in a "nothingness loop" where no things could come into existence afterwards.
But, since we are not in such a loop, that situation cannot have existed.

>>8222598
Nice

>>8222487
>actually supposing that you just happen to exist in the single and final iteration of a realm with vastly unknown properties
scientific literalism at it's worst