Coming from nothing

[Syd the Human]

I have seen this critique a lot when it comes to abiogenesis and the creation of everything (which is not evolution, just so everyone knows that). People will say, "Something cannot from nothing" and "A living thing cannot come from a non-living thing." So they say, "Since those two things cannot happen, then there must be some sort of Creator."

But if what they say is true, then who created a higher being?

Their answer is, "Well that being always existed."

Regardless of whether a person beliefs that a god is a physical being or not, they believe it exists, and that this being created everything. So, in reality atheists/agnostics are not doing anything far fetched when they accept things such as ambiogenesis and in theories like the Big Bang.

edit: I should have clarified. I re-read the title and went . I don't think that there was nothing previous to the big bang. It's just that is how theists tend to word things.

 

[football5680]

This proof of God is based upon the Big Bang theory which most scientists accept. The Big bang Theory states there was a beginning of the universe. If the universe was eternal then this argument would not exist but all the evidence shows otherwise. God is not judged by this criteria because nobody says he had a beginning.

If we try to ask what created God, the only answer we could come put with would be another higher being. Then we would have to ask then who created that, and again we would say another higher being. This leads to infinite regression and there is no final answer because we would always have to question then what created that.

Descartes said that on an individual basis we know that we exist because we think. If we try to deny this fact then we simply prove ourselves wrong because to deny something in the first place we must exist. When we accept this fact our logic tells us that something must have always existed so infinite regression is false logic once we accept this undeniable fact. So once this is established the question is what is the uncreated first cause. The Big bang theory says the universe came into existence at a point in time which they can apply an estimate to. Therefore the universe is not the first cause.

There is nothing wrong with an atheist accepting the Big Bang theory but they should follow where this logic leads and accept the existence of God. I feel abiogenesis is harder to accept but it isn't as important of a question as how did everything come into existence in the first place.

 

[Syd the Human]

This proof of God is based upon the Big Bang theory which most scientists accept. The Big bang Theory states there was a beginning of the universe. If the universe was eternal then this argument would not exist but all the evidence shows otherwise. God is not judged by this criteria because nobody says he had a beginning.

If we try to ask what created God, the only answer we could come put with would be another higher being. Then we would have to ask then who created that, and again we would say another higher being. This leads to infinite regression and there is no final answer because we would always have to question then what created that.

Descartes said that on an individual basis we know that we exist because we think. If we try to deny this fact then we simply prove ourselves wrong because to deny something in the first place we must exist. When we accept this fact our logic tells us that something must have always existed so infinite regression is false logic once we accept this undeniable fact. So once this is established the question is what is the uncreated first cause. The Big bang theory says the universe came into existence at a point in time which they can apply an estimate to. Therefore the universe is not the first cause.

There is nothing wrong with an atheist accepting the Big Bang theory but they should follow where this logic leads and accept the existence of God. I feel abiogenesis is harder to accept but it isn't as important of a question as how did everything come into existence in the first place.

Just because no one says something, does not mean that the issue does not exist. So my point still stands. Even though the universe began at one point and was started, does not automatically mean that a god did so. Because, at one point that god would have to exist.

Atheist/Agnostic: at one point in time the universe came into existence.

Religious: God has always existed, at at one point in time the universe came into existence because he created it.

So again we're not that different in this aspect.

This also depends on whether we view time as linear or not, but I don't fully grasp non-linear time so I can't really discuss it.

 

[KCfromNC]

The thing is, no one has ever observed nothing, so we have no reason to make any claims about it at all. Maybe nothing can come from nothing, maybe nothing can't possibly exist, maybe noting naturally changes into something 100% of the time. But until we have a chance to observe and test nothingness, anyone pretending to know anything about it is just making stuff up.

 

[KCfromNC]

When we accept this fact our logic tells us that something must have always existed so infinite regression is false logic once we accept this undeniable fact.

We exist, therefore infinities are impossible? Huh? You'll have to show your work here.

So once this is established the question is what is the uncreated first cause. The Big bang theory says the universe came into existence at a point in time which they can apply an estimate to. Therefore the universe is not the first cause.

Looking for a cause is begging the question.

There is nothing wrong with an atheist accepting the Big Bang theory but they should follow where this logic leads and accept the existence of God.

Or just accept that there's no reason to think there is a cause in the first place. Or that the mechanism is something totally different from what we'd intuit because intuition doesn't really do a good job with things so far outside our normal range of experience.

 

[Mediaeval]

God is supernatural, not preternatural. In other words, God is above and independent of His creation, just like an author is above and independent of his own book.

By contrast, abiogenesis assumes a process that is limited to nature. To continue the analogy, it assumes that paper and ink themselves, without an author, produced a book.

 

[durangodawood]

...anyone pretending to know anything about it is just making stuff up.

This is typical of the "edges of reality".

People try to reason about it when, really, we have no idea.

So lets stop with "we need a creator because..." Or "a decent God wouldnt let such and such happen". These things are matters of faith, or experience, but not reasoning.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

God is supernatural, not preternatural. In other words, God is above and independent of His creation, just like an author is above and independent of his own book.

I invite you to be the first person in history to outline a workable ontology and epistemology for the 'supernatural'. You can start by answering the following,

1. What is the 'supernatural'? Provide a positive, coherent definition.
2a. How do you reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'?
2b. How is that information it verified?
2c. How is that information discerned from something you may merely be imagining?
3. Can you point to a single piece of 'supernatural' information that was gleaned and verified in this way?

Since you've categorically written off naturalism, be sure not to steal any groundwork from naturalist epistemology when you provide your answers, lest you internally contradict yourself.

By contrast, abiogenesis assumes a process that is limited to nature. To continue the analogy, it assumes that paper and ink themselves, without an author, produced a book.

Blatant question begging.

How do you know authors write books? A tremendous body of easily accessible, critically robust evidence.

How do you know your god even exists? What a 'god' is? That creating life is something 'gods' do? That there are mechanisms by which this is logically possible?

Answer these and you'll have something approaching a real analogy.

 

[variant]

"A living thing cannot come from a non-living thing."

Living things are systematic arrangements of non-living things, so this claim seems remarkably counter intuitive.

 

[Ken-1122]

This proof of God is based upon the Big Bang theory which most scientists accept. The Big bang Theory states there was a beginning of the universe.

The Universe as we know it began to exist. Just because science doesn't know what existed before then doesn't mean it was God; to say so is just using God to filll in the blanks.

K

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have no idea how long the universe existed as a singularity before the Big Bang started.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, in reality atheists/agnostics are not doing anything far fetched when they accept things such as ambiogenesis and in theories like the Big Bang.

Or not accepting either where the evidence is ambiguous. "I don't know" is a refreshing position to take compared to adherence to the dogma of past generations.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is supernatural, not preternatural. In other words, God is above and independent of His creation, just like an author is above and independent of his own book.

An author is beholden to the same natural laws as the paper and ink. That is quite different from your claims about God.

By contrast, abiogenesis assumes a process that is limited to nature. To continue the analogy, it assumes that paper and ink themselves, without an author, produced a book.

Life is not words on a page. When books start having children, you might have a point, but not until then.

 

[Paradoxum]

This proof of God is based upon the Big Bang theory which most scientists accept. The Big bang Theory states there was a beginning of the universe. If the universe was eternal then this argument would not exist but all the evidence shows otherwise. God is not judged by this criteria because nobody says he had a beginning.

Well I don't think scientists are completely sure if the Big Bang was the beginning. Some have suggested the Big Bounce. The Big Bang is the beginning of expansion from something that could be the 'beginning'.

Still, it isn't as if there was ever a time when the universe didn't exist. The universe began expansion, but it has always existed (there was no time before the beginning).

So I see no reason to think the God and the universe are much different.

If we try to ask what created God, the only answer we could come put with would be another higher being. Then we would have to ask then who created that, and again we would say another higher being. This leads to infinite regression and there is no final answer because we would always have to question then what created that.

I can think of answers other than a higher being. The question isn't 'what created God', but rather 'what is the explanation for God's existence' (if you think God is timeless). The explanation for God, or the universe, could be simple laws of reality; eg: simple things exist.

I'm not saying that is the answer... I'm just saying the reason for existence could be based on some basic law, which would make sense if we understood the law.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This proof of God is based upon the Big Bang theory which most scientists accept. The Big bang Theory states there was a beginning of the universe. If the universe was eternal then this argument would not exist but all the evidence shows otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I don't think this is correct.
Space-time as we know it had a beginning, but nothing of such order is known about the singularity from which the universe came. It could perhaps be the case that the universe actually IS eternal, but that it just changed form (from singularity to space-time). Not that it matters much imo, but it seems you're excluding such a possibility and it's not clear to me why you do that.

God is not judged by this criteria because nobody says he had a beginning.

Which is just an arbitrary definition.
We could just as well arbitrarily define the universe as being "uncreated" and use that as an argument against a creation god. Arbitrary definitions are useless.

If we try to ask what created God, the only answer we could come put with would be another higher being. Then we would have to ask then who created that, and again we would say another higher being. This leads to infinite regression and there is no final answer because we would always have to question then what created that.

Yes. Which is actually not a valid argument for stating that "therefore, god is uncreated and eternal". Because you still haven't actually established that this god exists or is even required. You just arbitrarily defined it to be that way.

A more rational claim would be to state that the universe itself is uncreated and that it always existed in some form. I wouldn't agree to such a baseless claim either, but at least that one doesn't require assuming the existence of unsupported deities with a bunch of arbitrary properties.

Descartes said that on an individual basis we know that we exist because we think. If we try to deny this fact then we simply prove ourselves wrong because to deny something in the first place we must exist. When we accept this fact our logic tells us that something must have always existed

I have no idea how you got from Descartes' statement to the bolded part.

So once this is established the question is what is the uncreated first cause. The Big bang theory says the universe came into existence at a point in time which they can apply an estimate to. Therefore the universe is not the first cause.

I need to stop you right there. This is completely at odds with big bang theory and our knowledge of physics.

Causality requires time to exist (causes happen before effects).
Time is an integral part of the universe / space-time continuum.
No universe = no time.
No time = no causality.
No causality = no causes.
The big bang happened at T = 0 (the beginning of the universe or the beginning of time.

Before time is a senseless notion. There is no "before" time.
Whatever big bang was, under the current understanding it had to be uncaused.

You can't have your pie and eat it too.

There is nothing wrong with an atheist accepting the Big Bang theory but they should follow where this logic leads and accept the existence of God.

Logic never leads to assuming the existence of undemonstrable entities for which no evidence at all exists. Especially not if the "logic" requires you to selectively read scientific theories.

I feel abiogenesis is harder to accept but it isn't as important of a question as how did everything come into existence in the first place.

I can't help but feel as if what you really mean by that word "important" is how it is important to your belief system.

You need to understand that those things which you believe on faith are only relevant to you.

 

[BrainofJT]

Another thing to think about is that there is no actual scientific basis for "nothingness" being able to exist. In fact, even the "nothingness" that we consider to be space is comprised of something. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to expand.

In order to believe that a Big Bang could happen, you would need proof that there is such thing as nothingness, and the characteristics of nothingness is to produce something. In and of itself, that is a paradox. Nothingness, by definition, cannot have characteristics.

I wrote a post about something coming from nothing entitled "Something Out of Nothing" on the BrainofJT website. I can't link it here, but it is a great resource if you want to learn more.

 

[durangodawood]

....In order to believe that a Big Bang could happen, you would need proof that there is such thing as nothingness....

The big bang didnt necessarily come from nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

In order to believe that a Big Bang could happen, you would need proof that there is such thing as nothingness,

Or that there was a somethingness that the Big Bang came from, just as clouds and rainbows come from something without needing to come from a deity.

 

[KCfromNC]

In order to believe that a Big Bang could happen, you would need proof that there is such thing as nothingness, and the characteristics of nothingness is to produce something.

Or you could just look at the abundant evidence that it did happen - the CMB, H/He ratios, redshift, and so on. Making up things about it isn't necessary, but it wouldn't be philosophy if it relied on actual evidence and the science derived from it.

 

[bhsmte]

This proof of God is based upon the Big Bang theory which most scientists accept. The Big bang Theory states there was a beginning of the universe. If the universe was eternal then this argument would not exist but all the evidence shows otherwise. God is not judged by this criteria because nobody says he had a beginning.

If we try to ask what created God, the only answer we could come put with would be another higher being. Then we would have to ask then who created that, and again we would say another higher being. This leads to infinite regression and there is no final answer because we would always have to question then what created that.

Descartes said that on an individual basis we know that we exist because we think. If we try to deny this fact then we simply prove ourselves wrong because to deny something in the first place we must exist. When we accept this fact our logic tells us that something must have always existed so infinite regression is false logic once we accept this undeniable fact. So once this is established the question is what is the uncreated first cause. The Big bang theory says the universe came into existence at a point in time which they can apply an estimate to. Therefore the universe is not the first cause.

There is nothing wrong with an atheist accepting the Big Bang theory but they should follow where this logic leads and accept the existence of God. I feel abiogenesis is harder to accept but it isn't as important of a question as how did everything come into existence in the first place.

Sounds like you are a William Lane Craig fan.