For this I will turn to one of my favourite pre-Socratics, Parmenides. I will present his arguments which will hopefully help answer this ultimate question.

P1: If you can think about nothingness, then it has at least two attributes: it is knowable and thinkable.
P2: If ‘nothingness’ has attributes, then it isn’t nothingness; it is ‘something’ knowable and thinkable.
P3: It is absurd to claim that nothingness is something.
Conclusion: You cannot think about ‘nothingness’.

P1: If the cosmos comes to be it must come to be from what is not (nothingness) or from what is (something).
P2: The cosmos cannot come to be from not being/nothingness.
P3: The cosmos cannot come to be from something/what is because it already is.
Conclusion: The cosmos cannot come to be.

P1: If the cosmos is perishable it perishes into something or nothing.
P2: It cannot perish into something because that is still the cosmos.
P3: It cannot perish into nothing.
Conclusion: The cosmos cannot perish.

Share this:

More »

Related posts:

1. A Short Refutation of the Kalam Argument
2. Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing?