Someone here

Why is there something rather than nothing? (opinion)

103 posts in this topic

If a complete lack of anything were the case, then there would not be anything; however, there is something and so a lack of anything could not have been the case, and so that notion is out and done with. Nothing’ cannot even be meant, much less have any properties or be productive, and so even any notion of it is forever squashed.

So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.

The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. ‘The impossible Stillness’ thus gains single quote marks, akin to its relative of ‘Nothing’, neither one able to be.


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Become even more conscious to realize that everything you see is indistinguishable from nothing.

You're missing the point that "something" is a relativistic notion. The Universe cannot tell the difference between something and nothing.

Realize this: How would you know what nothing looks like? You don't actually have a reference point for what "nothing" looks like. For all you know, it could look identical to what you've been calling "life".

You are imagining that your life is "something". But this is a self-creating definition.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Become even more conscious to realize that everything you see is indistinguishable from nothing.

You're missing the point that "something" is a relativistic notion. The Universe cannot tell the difference between something and nothing.

Realize this: How would you know what nothing looks like? You don't actually have a reference point for what "nothing" looks like. For all you know, it could look identical to what you've been calling "life".

You are imagining that your life is "something". But this is a self-creating definition.

Well, there has to be a Fundamental Existent, X, because nonexistence cannot be. Thus it is mandatory and it is all there is, as the simplest partless and continuous state. 

There's no 'empty' or 'Nothing'.. As an a blank slate. It's always something. Even if we agree to call it "nothing". It's still not a zero. 


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why. But I know that we can't know anything beyond perception. And perception is something, therefore it can't point to nothingness.
The notion of "eternal universe" cannot be verified. And it could be the case that at some point in time, there was an actual nothing and then that void somehow/magically/IDK turned into something.


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

 And it could be the case that at some point in time, there was an actual nothing and then that void somehow/magically/IDK turned into something.

Not possible. Something always existed. That's the only logical possibility. 


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Not possible. Something always existed. That's the only logical possibility. 

Agreed.  Its so simple and obvious, yet in the spiritual traditions it seems like "nothing" is believed to be actual, instead of a "something", which isn't to be confused with a "thing" as in a object with separate properties from something else.  And your right, it would have to be eternal.

In regards to what "nothing" is usually talked about in spiritual circles, it generally is pointing to what you and I are talking about as "something" so its really just a linguistic thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Not possible. Something always existed. That's the only logical possibility. 

Well, maybe, but who said logic is true?

Just because you can't currently imagine nothingness, doesn't mean you won't ever be able to. How many things you could not imagine and then you came to experience?

Plus, even if you can't ever imagine it at all, still doesn't mean something always existed. Consider that you didn't exist before your birth.

Edited by Gesundheit2

Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Well, maybe, but who said logic is true?

Just because you can't currently imagine nothingness, doesn't mean you won't ever be able to. How many things you could not imagine and then you came to experience?

Plus, even if you can't ever imagine it at all, still doesn't mean something always existed. Consider that you didn't exist before your birth.

I would argue that if this supposed "nothing" is or was, then it wouldn't be a "nothing" and if it wasn't, it wouldn't become anything for it is "nothing" and there would be no ability for it to be accessed nor would it be intelligent or have quality of any sort to reveal it was there or become "something".  For if it could, it wouldn't be "nothing.  So that said, it is the most irrelevant thing even if it theoretically was true.

Again to repeat, "something" can be a thing or a no-thing, but wouldn't come from "nothing" or appear magically in "nothing".  NOTHING isn't.  Nothing becoming something, would imply it was a something to become something, but again if it were a zilch, zero, nada, it wouldn't be and again is irrelevant since it would mean nothing and have no impact on anything, for if it did, it would be a quality which is a something.

All said, I think what a lot of Buddhism, non-duality guys and some other major teachings talk about when they use the word "nothing" is the same as the word "something" as its being used here and I believe by @someone here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Well, there has to be a Fundamental Existent, X, because nonexistence cannot be. Thus it is mandatory and it is all there is, as the simplest partless and continuous state. 

There's no 'empty' or 'Nothing'.. As an a blank slate. It's always something. Even if we agree to call it "nothing". It's still not a zero. 

You still don't get it.

You don't have a reference point for what a "zero" or "empty" is. You are assuming these are objective things. They aren't. They are relative.

ONENESS means you cannot have a reference point for anything, since all reference points are inside the ONENESS you're trying to define and therefore all definitions ultimately fail.

There exists no objective definition for "something" nor "nothing". Therefore they literally collapse into an identity.

Everything you think of as something, is simultaneously also nothing. Your mind is being too biased towards equating form with somethingness to realize this. What you're missing with this bias is that form IS nothing.

You are stuck equating nothingness with formlessness, which is not the full picture. You have to realize that this is a bias which God does not share. This is a dumb human bias, so drop it.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Someone here

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

If a complete lack of anything were the case, then there would not be anything; however, there is something and so a lack of anything could not have been the case, and so that notion is out and done with. Nothing’ cannot even be meant, much less have any properties or be productive, and so even any notion of it is forever squashed.

So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.

The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. ‘The impossible Stillness’ thus gains single quote marks, akin to its relative of ‘Nothing’, neither one able to be.

   I think that the reason why we have something rather than nothing, is because we have something rather than nothing. Nothing is boring and costs too much calories, so a more efficient way of conserving energy is to form, to create something, on top of nothing, or formlessness. This way, you maintain a sense of YOU, without going complete bonkers and forgetting who/what you are everyday, every second. Too much energy, so you solidify and maintain this, over always switching to other somethings and back to nothing.

   This is my opinion you asked, which is a figment of my imagination, which is something, which came from nothing. Magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Someone here said:

If a complete lack of anything were the case, then there would not be anything;

What was said here is actually that there would still be the belief ‘complete lack’, which is an oxymoron, like non-existence. 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Someone here Also I think something Leo is pointing to, is that you may be still seeing this "something" in the realm of form or formless being polar options or even individually somethings that are inherently equal.  

There is neither, and this "something/eternal" your talking about is not in the realm of form or formless.   ITs almost indescribableness that is imagining and experiencing its own imaginational capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b-but where does the "energy" of the self-entangling mind come from? how can perceptions emanate from nothingness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, nuwu said:

how can perceptions emanate from nothingness?

Perceptions ARE nothingness.

How can you know what somethingness is? How can you define what is and what isn't something?

If I show you a big hairy dick, how do you know it's not nothing? How do you know it is something? Treat this question seriously. Stop taking somethingness for granted. It's not a given.

You take for granted that you can accurately distinguish something from nothing, but this isn't true. This distinction you're making is not objective, it is arbitrary and biased.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, nuwu said:

b-but where does the "energy" of the self-entangling mind come from? how can perceptions emanate from nothingness?

But you already assume how it works in that case.

How can you realize anything that is true if you already assume what is the case ?


God is love

Whoever lives in love lives in God

And God in them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nuwu

51 minutes ago, nuwu said:

b-but where does the "energy" of the self-entangling mind come from? how can perceptions emanate from nothingness?

   I guess try a psychedelic and see the entanglement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mu_ lol

3 hours ago, Mu_ said:

I would argue that if this supposed "nothing" is or was, then it wouldn't be a "nothing" and if it wasn't, it wouldn't become anything for it is "nothing" and there would be no ability for it to be accessed nor would it be intelligent or have quality of any sort to reveal it was there or become "something".  For if it could, it wouldn't be "nothing.  So that said, it is the most irrelevant thing even if it theoretically was true.

Yeah, all that logical thinking is nice and sweet, but reality is a-logical, and it's not limited by your imagination.

If you truly think that reality is logical, then I will ask you how come it exists at all? "Existence" in the way you think it is, is clearly illogical, because it falls under the infinite regression problem.

In the same way that you overcame infinite regression, you can overcome the current dilemma. Simply by stepping out of logical thinking and applying radical open-mindedness.

3 hours ago, Mu_ said:

Again to repeat, "something" can be a thing or a no-thing, but wouldn't come from "nothing" or appear magically in "nothing".  NOTHING isn't.  Nothing becoming something, would imply it was a something to become something, but again if it were a zilch, zero, nada, it wouldn't be and again is irrelevant since it would mean nothing and have no impact on anything, for if it did, it would be a quality which is a something.

No. That's simply a lack of imagination on your part.

Quote

All said, I think what a lot of Buddhism, non-duality guys and some other major teachings talk about when they use the word "nothing" is the same as the word "something" as its being used here and I believe by @someone here.

To be honest, I don't care one bit if it's this way or that way. All I know is that you guys don't know, and that you're simply taking a leap of faith instead of admitting defeat and not-knowing.

Edited by Gesundheit2

Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You still don't get it.

You don't have a reference point for what a "zero" or "empty" is. You are assuming these are objective things. They aren't. They are relative.

ONENESS means you cannot have a reference point for anything, since all reference points are inside the ONENESS you're trying to define and therefore all definitions ultimately fail.

There exists no objective definition for "something" nor "nothing". Therefore they literally collapse into an identity.

Everything you think of as something, is simultaneously also nothing. Your mind is being too biased towards equating form with somethingness to realize this. What you're missing with this bias is that form IS nothing.

You are stuck equating nothingness with formlessness, which is not the full picture. You have to realize that this is a bias which God does not share. This is a dumb human bias, so drop it.

This is pretty much the awakening I had in 2019.


"Not believing your own thoughts, you’re free from the primal desire: the thought that reality should be different than it is. You realise the wordless, the unthinkable. You understand that any mystery is only what you yourself have created. In fact, there’s no mystery. Everything is as clear as day. It’s simple, because there really isn’t anything. There’s only the story appearing now. And not even that.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Mu_ lol

Yeah, all that logical thinking is nice and sweet, but reality is a-logical, and it's not limited by your imagination.

If you truly think that reality is logical, then I will ask you how come it exists at all? "Existence" in the way you think it is, is clearly illogical, because it falls under the infinite regression problem.

In the same way that you overcame infinite regression, you can overcome the current dilemma. Simply by stepping out of logical thinking and applying radical open-mindedness.

No. That's simply a lack of imagination on your part.

To be honest, I don't care one bit if it's this way or that way. All I know is that you guys don't know, and that you're simply taking a leap of faith instead of admitting defeat and not-knowing.

I’m okay with not knowing if nothing in the way you say could illogically exists does. It’s irrelevant and doesn’t matter to me. If you like to think about it and it’s potential ramifications for you or me, by all means have fun, honestly. 

Also not that what I’m about to say matters, but your willing supposedly to take a leap of faith in not knowing but how do you know that. Can you equally prove you don’t know or there is a you to not know or know for that matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Also not that what I’m about to say matters, but your willing supposedly to take a leap of faith in not knowing but how do you know that. Can you equally prove you don’t know or there is a you to not know or know for that matter. 

If I could (or would, btw) prove anything, that would be knowledge/knowing.

Edited by Gesundheit2

Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now