121
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: +
Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing? (view source)
Revision as of 17:40, May 19, 2008
, 17:40, May 19, 2008→Yes
There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::But that is based on the assumption that you are observing 'something.' There is the offchance (which I do not believe), that there is nothing, and we do not exist. This is where the axiom comes in. We cannot prove the existence of the universe, we can only assume it does. It takes of stretch of the imagination to even consider it. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 13:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)