A reasoned argument to suggest that God probably exists

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe I'm nitpicking on a small part of the discussion, but I think this is more than counter-intuitive. As I said, I think it's an oxymoron to say something exists from nothing.

If there was nothing, and then there was something, a change occurred. It seems near to a tautology to me that change implies a cause. Your phrase "to exist from nothing" indicates that nothing caused the something ... which is a nonsense phrase. In any attempt to correct the nonsense, the statement of cause will necessarily become more explicit.

"Something from nothing" is oxymoronic because it's the 'standard' phrase used, not because it's an exhaustive and literal description of the idea. "Virtual reality" is neither, yet, the concept is sound.

You're right in that, taken literally, 'from nothing' implies that 'nothing' is what caused the 'something' to exist, which isn't what the phrase implies. Rather, the 'from nothing' is more of a poetic flourish to succinctly refer to a rather nuanced idea that would otherwise take more clunky English to refer to.

You're also right in saying "If there was nothing, and then there was something, a change occurred" - the 'if... then...' statement implies time has flowed. The problem is that time itself didn't exist when there was nothing (forgive my use of the phrase, "time didn't exist when..."; English has limits!).

The way I see it, there is the state of nothingness - that is, nothing exist. Nada. The nature of that state is such that there's not even anything to stop a random event from occurring. Thus, random events occur simultaneously and instantaneously (because there's no such thing as time). One such thing is the universe, which brought time along with it.

We can argue the likelihood of this, but ultimately we have less than no evidence to guide us - we can't even fall back on experience or logic, as neither really shed light on what would happen 'if' there was nothing.

That's why I'm not averse to say 'something from nothing' - the phrase refers to the idea that first there was nothing, and then there was something, and there was no actual causal event that made the change. What it doesn't mean is, 'nothing' itself was the cause - is that idea even possible?

Despite what I said above, you are still basically correct in this statement. Even if the "something from nothing" possibility is eliminated, the universe could be eternal, and, therefore, without a beginning. So, multiple possibilities remain from which to choose, and the argument remains unsettled. So, as I said, maybe I'm emphasizing a trivial point.

However, once the initial claims are made, I'm not sure all the possibilities will remain equally likely. Studying the structure of the current universe will likely move people off the fence toward one side or the other. This is what continues to confuse me - that a physicist such as yourself is still on the fence. At one time I assumed that meant you had an answer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But when we discussed it in threads past, it seemed you didn't have an answer.

I'm not sure what you mean - an answer to what?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the universe has been eternally expanding and contracting, then the entire universe is a perpetual motion machine, which violates the laws of physics. Of course the laws of physics as we now know them may be wrong. But for those who believe that the laws of physics are correct, it follows logically that the universe cannot have been eternally expanding and contracting.

I disagree - which laws say the universe can't be eternally expanding and contracting?

 

[Resha Caner]

(forgive my use of the phrase, "time didn't exist when..."; English has limits!)

Hence my reference to the philosophy of language. I think it's more than a limitation of English. Maybe someday someone will find a logical construct to express "the time before time". Maybe. For the time being I consider it more than a deficiency of language. I consider it a nonsensical idea. But for the sake of politeness, let me clarify the term "nonsensical". I don't mean it's a stupid idea. Quite the opposite. I find it a very intriguing idea. But, having wrestled with it over and over, it always seems to end in the nonsensical.

The way I see it, there is the state of nothingness - that is, nothing exist. Nada. The nature of that state is such that there's not even anything to stop a random event from occurring. Thus, random events occur simultaneously and instantaneously (because there's no such thing as time). One such thing is the universe, which brought time along with it.

But the random event is a "something". There is just no way to frame this without referring to a something, and hence no way to eliminate cause. The idea that "there's not even anything to stop a random event" begs the question: a random event of what? If there is a total nothingness, there is no thing to be the subject of the random event. There's not even an event.

I'm not sure what you mean - an answer to what?

Heat death. I think that's what AlexBP was alluding to, but I can't be sure. At one point in the past I thought I had heard some physicists discussing possible exceptions to the 2nd Law of Thermo. IIRC, your explanation of those possible exceptions left heat death firmly in place as the currently expected end. If so, the universe is not eternal. Hence, it must have had a beginning.

If it had a beginning, as I understand current physics, there must have been something external to give it a kick start.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hence my reference to the philosophy of language. I think it's more than a limitation of English. Maybe someday someone will find a logical construct to express "the time before time". Maybe. For the time being I consider it more than a deficiency of language. I consider it a nonsensical idea. But for the sake of politeness, let me clarify the term "nonsensical". I don't mean it's a stupid idea. Quite the opposite. I find it a very intriguing idea. But, having wrestled with it over and over, it always seems to end in the nonsensical.

We've talked before, so I wouldn't have taken it offensively Still, if it's a nonsense idea, if it's not mere incommunicable but actually logically impossibility, wouldn't that demonstrate what the OP is talking about?

But the random event is a "something". There is just no way to frame this without referring to a something, and hence no way to eliminate cause. The idea that "there's not even anything to stop a random event" begs the question: a random event of what? If there is a total nothingness, there is no thing to be the subject of the random event. There's not even an event.

The random event is the universe, in its primordial form.

Heat death. I think that's what AlexBP was alluding to, but I can't be sure. At one point in the past I thought I had heard some physicists discussing possible exceptions to the 2nd Law of Thermo. IIRC, your explanation of those possible exceptions left heat death firmly in place as the currently expected end. If so, the universe is not eternal. Hence, it must have had a beginning.

If it had a beginning, as I understand current physics, there must have been something external to give it a kick start.

Well, I'm always hesitant to extrapolate observations beyond the realm of where we've observed them - if the downfall of Newtonian mechanics has taught us anything, it's that, no matter how neat an idea is, the universe is far weirder at its fringes. We can extrapolate, but there's always the caveat that this is contingent on the laws of physics being fully known (which is unlikely), and I think that's something some people forget or overlook.

Take, for instance, the conservation of energy - what is that but an observation? It's not a law that must be true, and the peculiar situations we've yet to really probe - the edge of the universe, the start of the Big Bang, the core of a black hole - may completely violate it (and it wouldn't be the first such law to be proven wrong). If so, all these discussions are moot.

 

[Gavelbrook]

Hi there people.

I've been perusing this thread, and it seems to me that some things need to be clarified.

Firstly, if God existed, you'd run into the problem of his source. Who moved the Prime Mover?

Secondly, many scientists believe that other "stuff" exists. Multiverse Theory is popular and well recognized among the global academic community.

The problem is that because that these other universes are unobservable, so we'll probably never know where all this stuff that we see around us came from.

Nothing that is did not have a beginning. That's a scientific law.

Because of that, it's highly likely that the origin of stuff is unknowable. All that gave birth to a beginning must have been birthed itself from another reaction.

We run into a wall of infinity, which is frustrating, because, as far as we know infinity is impossible.

There's my two cents.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi there people.

I've been perusing this thread, and it seems to me that some things need to be clarified.

Firstly, if God existed, you'd run into the problem of his source. Who moved the Prime Mover?

I think the point is that God doesn't have a source.

Secondly, many scientists believe that other "stuff" exists. Multiverse Theory is popular and well recognized among the global academic community.

It's colloquially popular, and is an interesting idea, but it has no empirical merit.

The problem is that because that these other universes are unobservable, so we'll probably never know where all this stuff that we see around us came from.

There seems to be several inaccurate assumptions laden here. First, the multiverse theory isn't a theory of origins, it's a possible interpretation of quantum mechanics (specifically, what is, in the Copenhagen interpretation, termed the 'wavefunction collapse'). Second, nothing says these universes are fundamentally unobservable - even if we can't directly see them or interact with them, the nature of our universe may infer their existence, placing them squarely within scientific purview.

Nothing that is did not have a beginning.

Inaccuracies aside, the grammar in that sentence is marvellously convoluted.

That's a scientific law.

Which law, specifically?

Because of that, it's highly likely that the origin of stuff is unknowable. All that gave birth to a beginning must have been birthed itself from another reaction.

What evidence or proof do you have to support this claim? And again, I have to marvel at the use of such oblique phraseology as, "All that gave birth to a beginning". You just don't hear such poetic use of language any more .

We run into a wall of infinity, which is frustrating, because, as far as we know infinity is impossible.

'Infinity is impossible'?

 

[Gavelbrook]

Hm. I guess I tried to be too poetic. I shall state myself simply: whichever view you look at, theist or otherwise, runs into the problem that it requires some infinite process or being or "stuff".

This is a problem, yes, because infinity is immeasurable and out of our reach by nature.

I mentioned multiverse theory because it's often said that matter may have come from a parallel universe. Just another explanation to consider. On the topic of empirical merit, it may be lacking, but it does have rational merit--it is the product of many equations.

As well, I understand that this is a sensitive topic, Wiccan Child, but I do believe you need to "take a chill pill".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hm. I guess I tried to be too poetic.

I wasn't being critical, I genuinely enjoyed it.

I shall state myself simply: whichever view you look at, theist or otherwise, runs into the problem that it requires some infinite process or being or "stuff".

This is a problem, yes, because infinity is immeasurable and out of our reach by nature.

Immesurable, yes, but that doesn't make it a problem.

I mentioned multiverse theory because it's often said that matter may have come from a parallel universe. Just another explanation to consider. On the topic of empirical merit, it may be lacking, but it does have rational merit--it is the product of many equations.

There's quantum mechanics, and the Many Worlds hypothesis is one possible interpretation of what's happening at a quantum level. It doesn't involve any extra equations. As I said, it's certainly an interesting idea, but it's not a 'theory' and it's not scientifically 'popular'.

As well, I understand that this is a sensitive topic, Wiccan Child, but I do believe you need to "take a chill pill".

Err... OK?

As you yourself put it, you took it upon yourself to clarify errors you saw in this thread - yet you were in error yourself. Your statements, as far as I can tell, were wrong, so my responses were corrections (it may well be that I'm wrong, but that's why it's called 'discourse').

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

 

[Tiberius]

Or at the very least the universe isn't everything.

There aren't many good arguments around so I'll give it my best shot. Here goes...

The universe has a finite age, approximately 13.7 billion years.

The universe has been expanding all this time, all the matter and all the energy in the universe would have once existed at one point in a kind of condensed ball and an event took place (13.7 billion years ago) which caused all the laws of the universe to come into action, the universe has been expanding ever since.

We don't know what this event was, but the catalyst for this event could not have solely existed inside the realms of this universe, something must have happened externally, something must have changed, otherwise all the matter and all the energy in the universe would still exist at one point in a dormant state, if at all. (And incidentally the universe can not be infinitely old either, if it were all the matter in the universe would be infinite distances apart and there be no life and no us, therefore it must have had a beginning).

So if we agree that the catalyst for the beginning of the universe must have happened externally, then we must agree that "stuff" must exist outside of our universe.

Now if we suppose even for a second that "stuff" exists outside of the laws of our universe, then just suppose how vast this "stuff" might be, how complex this "stuff" might be, remember this "stuff" will not be constrained under the same laws of the universe that we are, so the possibilities for what is out there really do become endless and the possibility of intelligence being out there suddenly doesn't seem so improbable, does it?

And the old "First cause" argument gets pulled out again...

 

[Gadarene]

Isn't this the crappy form of the cosmological argument?

 

[Tiberius]

Isn't this the crappy form of the cosmological argument?

Pretty much.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along, move along...

 

[Gadarene]

*crappier, rather

 

[underpressure]

Why? Or rather, why does that matter? Reality is under no onus to be intuitive or pleasing to our senses - just because it's counter-intuitive for something to exist from nothing, doesn't mean it can't, and indeed says nothing about its veracity.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, deep subject...

My problem really with the idea that 'stuff can come from nothing' is that it is an inadequate explanation for the origins of our universe and it always will be independently of how much knowledge 'mankind' acquires, it's unfalsifiable for a start, it's as bad an explanation as saying 'God did it', in fact it's worse than that, much worse, because at least God could theoretically be proved to be true, where as you can never actually prove 'something can come from nothing' because if we've defined 'nothing' as something which doesn't exist you wont be able to find it or observe it, and more to the point if it doesn't exist (because it is 'nothing') why would we even entertain the idea of even mentioning it as an idea?

If the goal of science is to seek truth, and we have an idea that can not under any scenario be proved to be true, then it follows that no truth can be gained from that idea, therefore it is as unscientific and as useless an idea as you could possibly get. If it can not be proved to be true (under any possible scenario no matter how far fetched the scenario is), then I would go as far to say that the reason it can not be proved to be true is because it is almost certainly not true and therefore should be ruled out (or at least taken off any kind of pedestal as plausible).

To sum up my point, 'nothingness' does not exist, because if it did, then it wouldn't be 'nothing', it would be 'something', so it's totally insane to suggest something can come from that which doesn't exist in any shape way or form. The idea of 'nothingness' should be taken off the table completely IMO.

 

[Tiberius]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, deep subject...

My problem really with the idea that 'stuff can come from nothing' is that it is an inadequate explanation for the origins of our universe and it always will be independently of how much knowledge 'mankind' acquires, it's unfalsifiable for a start, it's as bad an explanation as saying 'God did it', in fact it's worse than that, much worse, because at least God could theoretically be proved to be true, where as you can never actually prove 'something can come from nothing' because if we've defined 'nothing' as something which doesn't exist you wont be able to find it or observe it, and more to the point if it doesn't exist (because it is 'nothing') why would we even entertain the idea of even mentioning it as an idea?

First of all, how do you propose to prove for a fact that God is true?

Secondly, the idea isn't that something came from definitely nothing. it could have been a pre-existing universe. We don't know.

If the goal of science is to seek truth, and we have a theory that can not under any scenario be proved to be true, then it follows that no truth can be gained from that theory, therefore it is as unscientific and as useless a theory as you could possibly get. If it can not be proved to be true (under any possible scenario no matter how far fetched the scenario is), then I would go as far to say that the reason it can not be proved to be true is because it is almost certainly not true and therefore should be ruled out (or at least taken off any kind of pedestal as plausible).

The beginnings of the universe are, from a scientific point of view, shrouded in mystery. Since there is no data, there is nothing that attempts to explain that data (because there is no data) and hence there is no theory.

There are IDEAS, which might one day be supported or falsified when we are able to get more data, but as for right now, there are no theories (at least not in the scientific sense of the word)

To sum up my point, 'nothingness' does not exist, because if it did, then it wouldn't be 'nothing', it would be 'something', so it's totally insane to suggest something can come from that which doesn't exist in any shape way or form. The idea of 'nothingness' should be taken off the table completely IMO.

By that logic, the word shouldn't exist either.

 

[underpressure]

I realise as well my above post trips me up a little from some of my earlier posts, so let me quickly redefine some of the terms I was using...

I'm defining the universe as everything that follows the laws of physics (whether we accurately know these laws yet or not).

I'm defining 'external stuff' as stuff which is completely alien to our laws of physics or science as we know it, although not necessarily unobservable to us.... one day..

If we agree the idea of 'nothing' is as absurd as it seems, because 'nothing' can not exist by definition otherwise it wouldn't be nothing, so logically, does it follow that outside of the laws of physics or the realms of our universe there can't be 'nothing', so there must be 'something'? I.E. External stuff.

(Or of course we could go back to the idea that the universe is infinite in size and time but that idea has some serious flaws too I think)

 

[underpressure]

First of all, how do you propose to prove for a fact that God is true?

Observations... I'm not saying we will likely prove God is true (if God exists that is), I'm just saying that it might not be logically completely and utterly impossible to prove, on the other hand it is a logical impossibility to observe true 'nothingness' though.

Secondly, the idea isn't that something came from definitely nothing. it could have been a pre-existing universe. We don't know.

Yes, I'm not saying there aren't other possibilities, I'm just dismantling the idea of nothingness and rejecting it as a possibility.

The beginnings of the universe are, from a scientific point of view, shrouded in mystery. Since there is no data, there is nothing that attempts to explain that data (because there is no data) and hence there is no theory.

There are IDEAS, which might one day be supported or falsified when we are able to get more data, but as for right now, there are no theories (at least not in the scientific sense of the word)

I wasn't using the scientific definiton of a "theory", I thought that was obvious although apologies if that confused you, using the word 'ideas' would have been better.

By that logic, the word shouldn't exist either.

Your logic is faulty I think. The word 'nothing' is a useful word to have in the English Language whether 'nothingness' exists or not, for example if someone asks "is there much stuff in the fridge?" and you reply "no, nothing", you can see how the word can still get plenty of usage.

A bit like how a computer can't truly pick 'random' numbers, we still use the word 'random' because for all intents and purposes it 'seems' random to us even if it isn't truly random. Just because randomness may not exist, doesn't mean we have to abandon the word completely, most people just aren't that pedantic to worry about it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, deep subject...

My problem really with the idea that 'stuff can come from nothing' is that it is an inadequate explanation for the origins of our universe and it always will be independently of how much knowledge 'mankind' acquires, it's unfalsifiable for a start, it's as bad an explanation as saying 'God did it', in fact it's worse than that, much worse, because at least God could theoretically be proved to be true, where as you can never actually prove 'something can come from nothing' because if we've defined 'nothing' as something which doesn't exist you wont be able to find it or observe it, and more to the point if it doesn't exist (because it is 'nothing') why would we even entertain the idea of even mentioning it as an idea?

Because it may well be the truth. The origin of the universe may lie in the simple fact that, without any thing, the universe spontaneously exists, and its no accident that we find ourselves in one which supports intelligent life.

I'm also confused by this line of reasoning:

"you can never actually prove 'something can come from nothing' because if we've defined 'nothing' as something which doesn't exist you wont be able to find it or observe it"

That may well be true, but why would we define 'nothing' as 'something that doesn't exist' in the first place? That seems to be at best redundantly tautologous.

If the goal of science is to seek truth, and we have an idea that can not under any scenario be proved to be true, then it follows that no truth can be gained from that idea, therefore it is as unscientific and as useless an idea as you could possibly get. If it can not be proved to be true (under any possible scenario no matter how far fetched the scenario is), then I would go as far to say that the reason it can not be proved to be true is because it is almost certainly not true and therefore should be ruled out (or at least taken off any kind of pedestal as plausible).

I disagree. If it cannot be tested, then the most we can say is that it cannot be tested. It falls within the ranks of all untested and untestable ideas - possible. The fact remains that it could well be the real reason that the universe exists.

I also disagree that it's fundamentally untestable - can you give the air-tight syllogism that shows this to be so? If not, then it remains potentially, if not practically, testable. I don't doubt that, if it is testable, then it's extremely difficult, but that alone doesn't make it impossible.

Consider what would happen if we dismissed all other possibilities. Whatever left, however improbable, must be the truth. How we go about doing that I don't know, but it's a possibility. The onus is on you, then, to prove that it's not falsifiable, not on me to prove that it is.

To sum up my point, 'nothingness' does not exist, because if it did, then it wouldn't be 'nothing', it would be 'something', so it's totally insane to suggest something can come from that which doesn't exist in any shape way or form.

Perhaps, but why? That's the question I'm driving at.

 

[Tiberius]

Observations... I'm not saying we will likely prove God is true (if God exists that is), I'm just saying that it might not be logically completely and utterly impossible to prove, on the other hand it is a logical impossibility to observe true 'nothingness' though.

Perhaps. But wat can we possibly observe that can only exist if God is real?

Yes, I'm not saying there aren't other possibilities, I'm just dismantling the idea of nothingness and rejecting it as a possibility.

HERE is a thread on Physics Forums that discusses quantum vacuum fluctuations and how particles can come from what is practically nothing.

I wasn't using the scientific definiton of a "theory", I thought that was obvious although apologies if that confused you, using the word 'ideas' would have been better.

I do prefer to use the word "Theory" in its scientific sense, as it tends to avoid confusion.

But I do agree with the point I was originally responding to. If there is an idea which is untestable then it is unscientific.

 

[underpressure]

Because it may well be the truth. The origin of the universe may lie in the simple fact that, without any thing, the universe spontaneously exists, and its no accident that we find ourselves in one which supports intelligent life.

I'm also confused by this line of reasoning:

"you can never actually prove 'something can come from nothing' because if we've defined 'nothing' as something which doesn't exist you wont be able to find it or observe it"

That may well be true, but why would we define 'nothing' as 'something that doesn't exist' in the first place? That seems to be at best redundantly tautologous.

Okay, I thought you might question that definition So how would you define 'nothing'? Because the only workable definition I could think of was 'that which doesn't exist'. It seems to me that any other definition would make 'nothing' into 'something', which would undermine your entire argument.

I disagree. If it cannot be tested, then the most we can say is that it cannot be tested. It falls within the ranks of all untested and untestable ideas - possible. The fact remains that it could well be the real reason that the universe exists.

I also disagree that it's fundamentally untestable - can you give the air-tight syllogism that shows this to be so? If not, then it remains potentially, if not practically, testable. I don't doubt that, if it is testable, then it's extremely difficult, but that alone doesn't make it impossible.

Simply by definition, to be able to test if 'something can come from nothing', we would have to have a state of nothingness to begin the test, which I'm saying is a logical impossibility bearing in mind that the state of nothingness I'm trying to imagine (even though it's nonsensical), can have no space, no dimensions, no time, no light, no laws, no nothing, it can't even have observation, so yeah, for that reason I don't see testing it as extremely difficult, I see it as impossible, because we're talking about 'nothingness' after all, it's the complete opposite of existence, so therefore it is non-existence, it doesn't exist..

Perhaps, but why? That's the question I'm driving at.

Why does 'nothingness' not exist? Again, you're going to have to give me your definition of what 'nothingness' is, because maybe you have a different way of defining it?