It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Very short OP, but I will be very active on the thread:
Is it possible for Nothing to exist, even as a concept?
what do ya think and be ready to defend cause I'll be playing devils advocate.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
In order for nothing to exist it must first be something. A concept is something. The word "nothing" is something. When we speak of "nothing", or God, we speak about the word and concept. That's it.
I'm saying "No" to it having an existence. Because "Nothing" is by definition "Non Existence".
In concept however I'd say "Yes" it must exist as a concept because we even have a word for it. If we have a word for something that doesn't actually exist then it exists in concept only.
Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.
Therefore, if we really want to observe ourselves and find out what we are, we are really beings of energy and vibration, radiating our own unique energy signature -this is fact and is what quantum physics has shown us time and time again.
We are much more than what we perceive ourselves to be, and it’s time we begin to see ourselves in that light. If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons.
These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void.
The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.
“Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual” (1) – Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University (quote taken from “the mental universe)
Absolute Truth refers to a reality which doesn't change over time. Absolute means all other truths are relative to it, or depend on it. When we talk about God, or Krishna, we're talking about the Absolute Truth.
The Absolute Truth is the source of everything, the ultimate cause of all causes. In Sanskrit, it is also called satyam param, the highest truth.
This supreme truth can be perceived in three features—as Brahman, all-pervading, impersonal oneness, as Paramatma, the manifestation of God within the heart of every being, and as Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These three are the same one truth, understood from increasingly advanced levels of realization.
In the beginning the Absolute appears impersonal. With more advancement, the Supreme is perceived within one's own heart and the hearts of others. The highest realization is to see the Supreme Truth as the Supreme Person, who is complete in wealth, power, fame, beauty, knowledge, and renunciation. The Bhagavad-gita, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, and other Vedic literatures identify this Supreme Personality of Godhead as Krishna.
To anyone unfamiliar with the concept, it may be difficult to grasp how a single person can contain or "be" all of reality: this world is full of relative truths, and Krishna is a different kind of person than we may be used to thinking about.
Here’s an example of a "non-absolute," or relative truth: "The sky is blue."
That may be true—if it’s daytime and there aren’t any clouds—but the sky won’t be the same color tonight and may not be the same color tomorrow. And even if it’s blue here, it’s not blue everywhere. That statement is true, then, in a relative way—relative to time and space. There are unlimited relative truths, but there is only one Absolute Truth. That’s why we capitalize the "A" and the "T."
Also, it isn’t possible to meditate on relative truths forever. The most pleasant "truths"—if they’re not absolute—either stop being true, or you get sick of them after a while. But meditating on the Absolute Truth can make anyone fearless, ecstatic, and always eager for more. As Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita:
"The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me."
(Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 10.9)
Here's one way Srila Prabhupada deals with this topic, from his commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam:
"Everyone is searching after the truth. That is the philosophical way of life. The demigods give information that the Supreme Absolute Truth is Krishna. One who becomes fully Krishna conscious can attain the Absolute Truth. Krishna is the Absolute Truth.
"Relative truth is not truth in all the three phases of eternal time. Time is divided into past, present and future. Krishna is Truth always, past, present and future. In the material world, everything is being controlled by supreme time, in the course of past, present and future. But before the creation, Krishna was existing, and when there is creation, everything is resting in Krishna, and when this creation is finished, Krishna will remain. Therefore, He is Absolute Truth in all circumstances.
"If there is any truth within this material world, it emanates from the Supreme Truth, Krishna. If there is any opulence within this material world, the cause of the opulence is Krishna. If there is any reputation within this material world, the cause of the reputation is Krishna. If there is any strength within this material world, the cause of such strength is Krishna. If there is any wisdom and education within this material world, the cause of such wisdom and education is Krishna. Therefore Krishna is the source of all relative truths."
Do leprechauns exist? No, which means they are "nothing" or non-existent.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Ok now this I can agree with. I can agree that non-existence correlates with the idea of no thing, but does it effectively define the word?
Then i think you need to define Nothing, because from my perspective it is the direct opposite of something.