Philosophy Now Forum

I think the thread fails to realize the conceptual dynamic of the existence/non-existence dichotomy, needed for existence to gain contrastual meaning, by negating the concept of nothingness as an absence of things. That is complexity concerning conscious beings. Existence simply is. Conscious being...

Non-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard. Feel free to demonstrate. I can, empirically. Here are two examples: 1. The device you are using to write this is not your living quarters. It is absent of being your living quarter...

Sure. If the claim you're making is for a creature that is finite and limited by something, then it's possible to do. I’m contending nonexistence has no ontological reality. Reviewing your statement here it appears we agree: "Nothing" is not something that you can expect to "exist,&q...

The philosophy presented is a standalone foundational ontology. It isn’t a formal academic paper, however, it is a coherent and functional framework capable of accommodating various worldviews while maintaining ontological integrity. The ontology is practical and accessible, it provides parameters t...

I think the thread fails to realize the conceptual dynamic of the existence/non-existence dichotomy, needed for existence to gain contrastual meaning, by negating the concept of nothingness as an absence of things. That is complexity concerning conscious beings. Existence simply is. Conscious being...

Non-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard. We may discuss this topic in the other thread: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=793213#p793213 From the thread: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=654347...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:31 pmNon-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard.

Feel free to demonstrate.

No. Genesis. But Roman 4:17 and Col. 1:16 would need explanation. There's certainly plenty of indication that whatever exists -- and that seems to mean absolutely everything, including any secondary substance from which other things were created, was made by God. So if nothing is excluded from that...

The Catholic Bible, in Latin, says "ex nihilo." Hebrews says, "things not seen." Are you referring to Maccabees? Maccabees is not universally accepted, it is not part of the Protestant canon. Maccabees has the only passage containing “ex nihilo”. Additionally it is arguably outw...

“Things not visible” is not nothing, and to suggest otherwise is quite a reach. Maybe. But it's a "reach" that only the Catholic Vulgate bothers to make. The Hebrews wording is open to it, but not conclusive. The text suggests creation from things or creation from existence, not creation ...

I'm interested in seeing how you prove that to yourself. Maybe your reasons will be good for me, too. Go ahead. It simply is not stated. Provide one passage from the Bible declaring creation from nothing. However the inverse is explicitly expressed “with God nothing shall be impossible” Luke 1:37. ...

The starting premise, creation from nothing, is false. I'm interested in seeing how you prove that to yourself. Maybe your reasons will be good for me, too. Go ahead. It simply is not stated. Provide one passage from the Bible declaring creation from nothing. However the inverse is explicitly expre...

In the myth, god did not create the World from matter but from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Again, there's no problem here if God is transcendent. If He were something subject to physical laws, there would be; but then, if he were less than and subject to His own physical laws, He would not be tran...

Energy can not be created or destroyed. That means that the god Creator does not exist because that is not possible. Energy is eternal, and this fact excludes the Creator god. In the myth, god did not create the World from matter but from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). The Bible does not explicitly d...

10.8.2025 Essay Revisions Abstract Revision Former Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing be...