• Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k
    Substitute rabbits for apples and you can have the Fibonacci sequence. What could you prove with that?
  • A Christian Philosophy
    1k

    Here is my point: If the necessary consequence of a hypothesis is impossible, then the hypothesis is false. For the hypothesis 'Something can come from nothing', a necessary consequence is that 3 apples could logically result from 2 apples; because the third apple could come into existence from nothing. But we agree that "I+I=III" is mathematically impossible; thereby making the event of 3 apples resulting from 2 apples impossible.

    Conclusion: the hypothesis of 'Something can come from nothing' is false.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k
    For the hypothesis 'Something can come from nothing', a necessary consequence is that 3 apples could logically result from 2 apples;Samuel Lacrampe

    It's so not a necessary consequence. I thought you knew how to use quantifiers.
  • A Christian Philosophy
    1k
    It's so not a necessary consequence.Srap Tasmaner
    To be more specific, which following statement do you disagree with?
    1. If a thing can come from nothing, then an apple can come into existence from nothing.
    2. I put 1 apple and another 1 apple in a closed system. Then a third apple comes into existence from nothing, thereby resulting in 3 apples in the closed system.
    3. From statement 2, we conclude that "1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples" is possible in practice.
    4. I+I=III is impossible.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k
    "It is possible for something to come from nothing" is not the same as "It is possible for anything to come from nothing."
  • A Christian Philosophy
    1k

    Interesting claim. If I understand you correctly, you reject the proposition that "anything can come from nothing", and say that "some things can come from nothing, and some things cannot". I also take it you agree that apples are part of the things that cannot, as demonstrated in the I+I≠III argument (unless you see a flaw in that argument).

    What follows is that the things that can come from nothing must escape the I+I≠III argument. Is that correct so far?
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k

    I expressed no opinion on the apples and don't intend to. It's just logic: "I can eat something" is not equivalent to and does not entail "I can eat anything" or "I can eat everything."
  • A Christian Philosophy
    1k

    I agree with you that 'some' does not necessarily mean 'all'. But it is also just logic that there are only 3 ways to see the proposition: (1) everything can come from nothing, or (2) some things can come from nothing and some things cannot, or (3) nothing can come from nothing.

    Looking at (1): the I+I≠III argument must be addressed, because it contradicts that proposition.
    Looking at (2): those things that can come from nothing must escape the I+I≠III argument.
    Looking at (3): it is compatible with the I+I≠III argument, and unless (1) and (2) can be defended against the I+I≠III argument, then (3) becomes the only possibly true proposition.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k

    Sorry, man, there's no way I'm going to discuss whether "Nothing comes from nothing" is true. Best of luck to you, Sam.
  • A Christian Philosophy
    1k
    You are missing out on a really fun conversation. But as you wish. See you later.
1678910Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment