Why is there something rather than nothing?

[poolerboy0077]

The question in this thread's title sans brackets is typically posed at atheists about why the world or the universe exists and a lack of an answer, with Christians hinting in a matter-of-factly sort of way that it's because of God.

But the question isn't satisfactorily answered by invoking God. In fact, the question remains: why is there a God instead of nothing? The question obviously presupposes God's existence (something I don't really believe but only entertain for he sake of argument). But if God exists as Christians believe, why is there a God instead of nothing?

 

[Gottservant]

The answer to this is that if you have nothing, you want there to be something, and if you want there to be something, someone has to take responsibility for nothing, and if someone has to take responsibility for nothing, they must be all-powerful, and if someone can take responsibility for nothing and be all-powerful, it follows that they must be God...

...and if there is a God, it follows that there must be something, and if there is something, then someone must have taken responsibility, and if someone must have taken responsibility, that someone must have been God, and if that someone must have been God, then God exists as long as God exists, therefore God exists (because God exists)...

because if God exists when God exists, then God always exists and if God always exists, then there is always something and if there is always something, then there is never nothing, then for there to have been nothing and then something means that nothing must have been imagined, which means something was created from imagination, which is how God is created.

Now you say, "you took a forgone conclusion and made it circular, then you made it all encompassing", well, that's how the Universe is created: energy builds up and moves out until you have this huge universe.

Really, think, do I know there was nothing, or am I seeing something and concluding that there must have been forever less? Because it doesn't necessarily follow that forever less becomes nothing, any more than circular arguments become something, if you really want to be honest.

 

[FireDragon76]

But the question isn't satisfactorily answered by invoking God. In fact, the question remains: why is there a God instead of nothing? The question obviously presupposes God's existence (something I don't really believe but only entertain for he sake of argument). But if God exists as Christians believe, why is there a God instead of nothing?

I think you are probably aware of this, but theists generally believe God is a necessary being. That's different from the universe being contigent.

 

[Ken-1122]

The question in this thread's title sans brackets is typically posed at atheists about why the world or the universe exists and a lack of an answer, with Christians hinting in a matter-of-factly sort of way that it's because of God.

But the question isn't satisfactorily answered by invoking God. In fact, the question remains: why is there a God instead of nothing? The question obviously presupposes God's existence (something I don't really believe but only entertain for he sake of argument). But if God exists as Christians believe, why is there a God instead of nothing?

I think atheists and theists agree that something has always existed. What they differ on is what has always existed.

Ken

 

[BL2KTN]

It continues to still be a great mystery. Lawrence Krauss has attempted to answer it, but I was completely unimpressed with his explanation. I continue to think that whatever is original also exists outside normal chronology, and likely outside our current comprehension.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think you are probably aware of this, but theists generally believe God is a necessary being.

God exists because it is asserted that it must exist? That's not going to convince anyone.

 

[juvenissun]

The question in this thread's title sans brackets is typically posed at atheists about why the world or the universe exists and a lack of an answer, with Christians hinting in a matter-of-factly sort of way that it's because of God.

But the question isn't satisfactorily answered by invoking God. In fact, the question remains: why is there a God instead of nothing? The question obviously presupposes God's existence (something I don't really believe but only entertain for he sake of argument). But if God exists as Christians believe, why is there a God instead of nothing?

Yes, God, or nothing. It is your choice. There is no reason to it.
But after you made the choice, then everything expanded from there has different meaning.

We should back track the question: We have things currently we have (the fact), then which choice should be right at the beginning?

 

[poolerboy0077]

The answer to this is that if you have nothing, you want there to be something, and if you want there to be something, someone has to take responsibility for nothing, and if someone has to take responsibility for nothing, they must be all-powerful, and if someone can take responsibility for nothing and be all-powerful, it follows that they must be God...

Oh for hevean's sake...

If there is nothing, there cannot be someone to "want" anything. That's what nothing means.

-_-

I think you are probably aware of this, but theists generally believe God is a necessary being. That's different from the universe being contigent.

Why is God a necessary being? Necessary to what?

 

[NamelessHero]

You ask as if we know everything. I **think** that a god exists, but there is a chance that I'm wrong.
Atheists **think** that there isn't a god, but they don't know for sure.

 

[bhsmte]

You ask as if we know everything. I **think** that a god exists, but there is a chance that I'm wrong.
Atheists **think** that there isn't a god, but they don't know for sure.

Love the honesty. So many Christians, could never admit, they may be wrong about their beliefs.

 

[BobRyan]

The question in this thread's title sans brackets is typically posed at atheists about why the world or the universe exists and a lack of an answer, with Christians hinting in a matter-of-factly sort of way that it's because of God.

But the question isn't satisfactorily answered by invoking God. In fact, the question remains: why is there a God instead of nothing? The question obviously presupposes God's existence (something I don't really believe but only entertain for he sake of argument). But if God exists as Christians believe, why is there a God instead of nothing?

There was once a big pot of "nothing" not even space or time.

Suddenly out popped a "big something" -- the entire universe.

With entirely different physics - than can be had today -- of course.

And then gravity and a few other forces "appeared" and then other stuff "appeared" and then intelligent life began writing novels and science text books on quantum physics.

All "popping out of nothing at all" - no not even space or time.

This is the sort of "seven acre wood" that Winnie the pooh lived in.

For the rest of us -- there is actual science.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[NamelessHero]

Love the honesty. So many Christians, could never admit, they may be wrong about their beliefs.

They're scared.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think atheists and theists agree that something has always existed. What they differ on is what has always existed.

Atheists either believe the universe is eternal, which the evidence does not support (though at one time this was a much more reasonable belief), or they appeal to ignorance ("we don't know but science will find out").

God exists because it is asserted that it must exist? That's not going to convince anyone.

God's necessary existence is congruent with monotheist theology, philosophical deduction, and Jewish scriptures. Belief in God's necessity is therefore not arbitrary. Certainly, this won't convince everyone, but that's because there is more to the motivation of belief that whether a belief is rational or not.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think you are probably aware of this, but theists generally believe God is a necessary being. That's different from the universe being contigent.

Why is God necessary?

I'd say that physical reality isn't contingent... it's necessary.

Both sides will claim their ultimate reality to be necessary (it has to be). I don't claim to know why physical reality is necessary though.

There was once a big pot of "nothing" not even space or time.

Well I wouldn't claim there was absolutely nothing.

Suddenly out popped a "big something" -- the entire universe.

With entirely different physics - than can be had today -- of course.

Well the same basic laws of reality could likely still apply today actually.

And then gravity and a few other forces "appeared" and then other stuff "appeared" and then intelligent life began writing novels and science text books on quantum physics.

Well there could be a reason for the laws being as they are, or they could be random. There's no reason to discount randomness. The laws then led to humans and civilisations over billions of years.

All "popping out of nothing at all" - no not even space or time.

I don't think there was absolute nothing.

 

[Paradoxum]

Atheists either believe the universe is eternal, which the evidence does not support (though at one time this was a much more reasonable belief), or they appeal to ignorance ("we don't know but science will find out").

I don't think it was eternal, but I can attempt a second answer, other than I don't know.

I think there was a beginning to expansion from the Big Bang, but there might not have been a time when the universe didn't exist. So there was a time zero (or one), but the universe existed at time zero. So there was never nothing.

But yeah, we don't know... like we didn't know many things in the past.

God's necessary existence is congruent with monotheist theology, philosophical deduction, and Jewish scriptures. Belief in God's necessity is therefore not arbitrary. Certainly, this won't convince everyone, but that's because there is more to the motivation of belief that whether a belief is rational or not.

But why is God's existence necessary. You can say that you don't know, but that means me and you are in the same position.

 

[bhsmte]

They're scared.

I agree.

Admitting you may be wrong, is a sign of strength, not weakness.

 

[BobRyan]

There was once a big pot of "nothing" not even space or time.

Suddenly out popped a "big something" -- the entire universe.

With entirely different physics - than can be had today -- of course.

And then gravity and a few other forces "appeared" and then other stuff "appeared" and then intelligent life began writing novels and science text books on quantum physics.

All "popping out of nothing at all" - no not even space or time.

This is the sort of "seven acre wood" that Winnie the pooh lived in.

For the rest of us -- there is actual science.

in Christ,

Bob

Well I wouldn't claim there was absolutely nothing.

It is hard to have a "something" when you have no space or time. Think about the fundamental forces in nature and the fundamental particles in physics - - you have "nothing" if you take away space-time from them.

Well the same basic laws of reality could likely still apply today actually.

The laws of physics don't operate without space-time.

If a few micro-seconds into the big-bang gravity came into being the entire universe in one tiny region -- super gravity in a tiny space... super black hole not super expansion --

So then they start with expansion of "no matter at all" just a few of the basic forces -- not even gravity and then later matter starts to "appear" on its own.

The sort of stuff that does not happen today - because physics does not work that way.

Well there could be a reason for the laws being as they are, or they could be random. There's no reason to discount randomness. The laws then led to humans and civilisations over billions of years.

The randomness includes a cosmological constant "finely tuned" not just to 1% tolerance or even .0000001% tolerance between life and death... but rather to 1x10 raised to the -120th power "fine tuning". 10^-120

No atheist alive has been able to acomodate such a "random event" in their "just so stories". So the solution? -- Start imagining a "multiverse" of around 10^500 other entire universes getting it mostly "all wrong" just so we can have our 10^-120 odd-ball chance to get it right.

This is one of the reasons it is called "blind faith evolutionism".

And of course once you get the laws of physics right - you still need to "imagine" that a sufficient quantity of dust, rocks and gas in our local region of space - would have the property of creativity so as to form intelligent life and then science texts on quantum mechanics.

Another example where "blind faith" hardly begins to account for it all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[JimmyNeutron]

It might be a mistake for me to get involved in this sort of discussion (I tend to get stuck in this sort of thread, never to escape ) but here goes anyway:

The reason why there is something rather than nothing would be difficult, if not impossible, to answer due to the nature of the reality that exists beyond the universe. The problem lies in the fact that, from a theistic perspective, God has always existed and therefore is not subject to the laws of cause and effect, as they are a part of this universe over which God has control. Ergo, in accordance with the laws (be there any) that govern the way things outside the universe (i.e. God) operate, it is entirely possible for Him to have existed forever.

Thus, is would be pointless to try to explain how such a thing is possible, given the fact that we are coming from a perspective grounded in the laws of physics and space and time that hold sway in this universe. However, from an atheistic perspective, we run into another problem. It is mathematically and scientifically evident that the universe had a beginning. Theories such as "the universe explodes in a big bang, expands for a while, then contracts until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch" have been disproven in many ways.

Therefore, if the universe had a beginning, it would be utterly preposterous to suggest that there was nothing before it. No space, time, matter, energy, laws of physics, math, logic, God, etc. I believe the reason that surprisingly few people realize how ridiculous this concept is (that something can come from nothing) is because people don't often realize what "nothing" actually is (or rather, isn't).

Now there are, of course, other theories that I won't go into here, but suffice to say, it is a greater challenge to explain why there is something rather than nothing if it is first supposed that the universe is the extent of reality (more so if you deny the existence of God as well).

 

[Paradoxum]

It is hard to have a "something" when you have no space or time. Think about the fundamental forces in nature and the fundamental particles in physics - - you have "nothing" if you take away space-time from them.

I don't think we know yet what was the state of space and time back then. Maybe there was a tiny amount of space and time in the beginning.

Many Christians talk about a God which is spaceless and timeless. Perhaps the universe was like that for an instant. Such a state is pretty incomprehensible to us, so I'm not sure we can say that a spaceless, timeless state is absolute nothing. Scientists do talk about point particles... perhaps space isn't necessary for something... it just means there's no movement.

The laws of physics don't operate without space-time.

When I said the laws or reality, I didn't mean the laws of physics. There could be basic laws to reality beyond the universe. eg: The reason something exists, rather than nothing.

If a few micro-seconds into the big-bang gravity came into being the entire universe in one tiny region -- super gravity in a tiny space... super black hole not super expansion --

Well as I understand the hypothesis, gravity might have been unified with the other forces back then. I don't know if that means it existed or not. I'm not sure you can claim that you know there would be a black hole, not expansion... I'm guessing your not an expert on this subject. Even the experts probably don't know at the moment.

So then they start with expansion of "no matter at all" just a few of the basic forces -- not even gravity and then later matter starts to "appear" on its own.

As I understand it, the hypothesis is that there was energy which drove expansion, and the energy turned into matter.

I haven't read up on this subject in years.

The sort of stuff that does not happen today - because physics does not work that way.

Well yes... things might work different under different conditions... that isn't a crazy idea.

The randomness includes a cosmological constant "finely tuned" not just to 1% tolerance or even .0000001% tolerance between life and death... but rather to 1x10 raised to the -120th power "fine tuning". 10^-120

I liked the fine-tuning argument when I was a Christian. After I thought about it more, I didn't find it convincing. For example, there could be other universes.

No atheist alive has been able to acomodate such a "random event" in their "just so stories". So the solution? -- Start imagining a "multiverse" of around 10^500 other entire universes getting it mostly "all wrong" just so we can have our 10^-120 odd-ball chance to get it right.

Yup, that's one answer. Most people don't win the lottery, but someone wins.

This is one of the reasons it is called "blind faith evolutionism".

What is the reason? The mutliverse is a totally reasonable idea. You might find it strange, but quantum physics is stranger (but apparently true).

And of course once you get the laws of physics right - you still need to "imagine" that a sufficient quantity of dust, rocks and gas in our local region of space - would have the property of creativity so as to form intelligent life and then science texts on quantum mechanics.

If there are billions of planets, it's not unreasonable for there to be many places with the right conditions for life. We just happen to be one of them.

Another example where "blind faith" hardly begins to account for it all.

What blind faith? I don't know how it all started. I can give a hypothesis, but that's all it is.

 

[NamelessHero]

I agree.

Admitting you may be wrong, is a sign of strength, not weakness.

To be honest I'm not any better than them. I'm just as scared but I'm more honest with myself.