Is Nothingness the Basic State of Existence?

[Brickjectivity]

Its doubt is not my claim, so not my burden.

I think you are running scared. Denying that we can't prove we exist is just avoiding the issue. It is the disco of arguments.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The basic state of existence is existence.

I can't argue with that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

She got tired of trying to prove I exist. I declare that I may not.

 

[Penumbra]

Intuitively, for nothing to exist seems to make more sense than for something to exist. Mainly because for something to exist, it would have had to always exist without beginning (seems kinda odd), or have come from nothing (also seems even odder). And that applies whether the something that's being discussed is a universe or a god or anything else.

Seeing as how something does exist, it's either a fluke, or it's actually the more basic state than nonexistence.

 

[Willamena]

Intuitively, for nothing to exist seems to make more sense than for something to exist. Mainly because for something to exist, it would have had to always exist without beginning (seems kinda odd), or have come from nothing (also seems even odder).

Yet, there is an underlying assumption there. Can you identify it?

Seeing as how something does exist, it's either a fluke, or it's actually the more basic state than nonexistence.

A roundabout way to sense.

 

[That one dude...]

(Needless to say, this is implying there isn't any form of afterlife or life before life)

Is nonexistence primary?

Is life an intermission of a forever oblivion?

On one hand, that is what surrounds the time of our life, before birth and after death.

On the other hand, there can't exactly 'be' nothingness, nothingness is the lack of something.

Those are my two thoughts, what are your's?

There is a video relevant to this entire line of questioning:

I have some thoughts of my own, though. First, I agree that nothingness is the lack of something. Also, I don't believe I exist before conception or after death. But, I don't think life should be confused with existence. Many things exist that aren't alive. For instance, I don't believe I'm alive before birth or after death. There are many who believe we exist eternally and are alive from the moment of conception until death, but I disagree. Life is a subset (and a tiny one, at that) of existence, and I submit that the entire process between conception and birth is evidence of that. Something was in my mom for 9 months for sure, but it wasn't alive yet. It wasn't really me yet.

So, those are some of my thoughts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, those are some of my thoughts.

I watched one of those Asimov debates. I think it was that one. Very cool stuff.

 

[Orbit]

(Needless to say, this is implying there isn't any form of afterlife or life before life)

Is nonexistence primary?

Is life an intermission of a forever oblivion?

On one hand, that is what surrounds the time of our life, before birth and after death.

On the other hand, there can't exactly 'be' nothingness, nothingness is the lack of something.

Those are my two thoughts, what are your's?

Since we exist, I don't see how we can say nonexistence is primary. Everything around us exists, therefore it seems that existence is what is primary. Please no descents into solipsism....

 

[Willamena]

Since we exist, I don't see how we can say nonexistence is primary. Everything around us exists, therefore it seems that existence is what is primary. Please no descents into solipsism....

The world isn't nothing.

 

[Straw Dog]

(Needless to say, this is implying there isn't any form of afterlife or life before life)

Is nonexistence primary?

No. There is no middle state between existence and nonexistence. 'Becoming' is just a change or development in the particular mode of existence.