Has energy, or the potential for it always existed?

>>8910277
No it sprang from nothing for no reason, sci fact, no proof doe, probably God

>>8910284
What is even nothing? Nothingness might just be a fallacy invented by the primate mind. None of us cannot even imagine what nothing is like.

Nothing is not the same as empty space, or a vacuum.

Isn't this explained by an impossibly dense universe exploding outwards?

>>8911383
nothing is the absence of something.

BTFO.

>>8911414
Nice fallacy.

That's like saying, with i.e. an apple, that non-apple is the absence of an apple.

>>8911383

I think you might enjoy this video anon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

>>8910277
>posting ugly old women in op
fuck you weird granny porn faggot
SAGE

>>8911425
If you define it so, then yes, the absence of an apple is non-apple. Everything which is not an apple, or is without an apple, is now non-apple. Is it not true that my phone is not an apple (inb4 apple phone joke)? Considering an apple is defined as an apple, we could deem anything not fitting the definition of apple to have the definition "non-apple". Therefore non-apple is defined. We define "something" in this case as being anything that has a property other than the property of having no properties. If we so define nothing to be the absence of something, then that is nothing. Whether or not a true "nothing" "exists", in which case there is, somewhere, a region with truly nothing in it (I understand how space/a vacuum is not nothing, I do mean truly nothing), is unknown. If, somehow, we discover a region of "nothing", then it will be proven to be more than a simple concept. An idea that I and many others have had about the edge of space is that at the big bang, everything we define as something began moving out from a central point. The region which all this something is moving into is actually just nothing, and so the edge of the universe is simply how far it has expanded into the nothingness so far. Not sure if that's an outdated idea or how it holds up to modern physics or philosophy, and it's not necessarily my belief, but it's just some food for thought for you

>>8911633
My point was that it is a fallacy. If you define A as the absence of B, that is nice and simple. But A is still something. The non-apple is something. If you define nothing as the absence of something, then nothing is obviously something, too.

>>8911414
Something is the negation of nothing

BTFO.