Why is there something rather than nothing?

[BobRyan]

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.

Well that is not what secular science states.

Further - if you go to outer space -- total vacuum nothing there - you still have space and time in that vacuum. So then the universe did not pop out of the nothing you find in that vacuum according to the story - rather it popped out of something much less than that - ...

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.

Whatever dimension God exists in - may not need our 3-D space time and certainly He can do what a vacuum cannot do by itself - not even a vacuum with no space or time. So the question is not "what could God do if the universe did not yet have the fabric of space-time". -- At least not for secular science.

Scientists do talk about point particles... perhaps space isn't necessary for something... it just means there's no movement.

Point particles exist only in space time. If there is no time - there can be no "event" no "sequence" not "first this happened and then that happened".

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.

The Bible says that God is the reason that something exists rather than nothing -- in John 1 and Colossians 1.

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.

There is no science, no experiment, no observation known to mankind where we can see/know/experiment with "gravity combined with another force". Imagine electro-magnetism or the weak nuclear force or the strong nuclear force combining with gravity.... what physics is that??

It is "unknown to mankind" - so it is "imagined".

I'm not sure you can claim that you know there would be a black hole, not expansion

We have a black hole in the center of our own galaxy -- that means the mass at the center of this one tiny galaxy alone is 'sufficient' to compose a black hole... because we have both "space and time" in our universe.

If the entire universe were to be confined to that same space - and space-time existed - gravity exists...well every physicist on the planet will tell you that it would be a super-massive black hole by every known observation/experiment we have today on the subject.

That is not the part that is the "guess".

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

Indeed - "energy turned into matter' -- what experiment known to mankind does that??

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.

Well Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind are two nobel winning physicists and cosmologist -- atheist both of them... that are more than a little convinced that the fine tuning argument to 10^120 is absolutely impossible to swallow without first "imagining" something like 10^500 other entire universes all there to help you out of the mess you are in - in that case.

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

Quantum physics works and is observed in real life. Even one other entire universe is not. Much less 10^500 other entire universes. Might as well imagine 10^500 easter bunnies as the 'science' for a given view to make it work.

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.

Given this particular universe - it is true that other planets with life are indeed the expected outcome.

But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about fine tuning to 10^120 power which is beyond all scales known to mankind for precision.

They are left with only one "solution" which is to "imagine that it is going wrong in 10^500 other entire universes so we can consider ourselves benefiting from dumb-luck blind chance".

I prefer to believe the Bible rather than exercise that sort of blind faith in 10^500 imaginary universes all running wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

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 didn't say the Atheists believe the Universe was eternal; I said something always existed. The Universe as we know it hasn't always existed, but something existed prior and nobody knows. There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't have all the answers. The wrong answer is more harmful than no answer at all.

K

 

[FireDragon76]

I didn't say the Atheists believe the Universe was eternal; I said something always existed. The Universe as we know it hasn't always existed, but something existed prior and nobody knows. There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't have all the answers. The wrong answer is more harmful than no answer at all.

If you as an atheist appeal to mystery, you can't accuse the theist of being irrational for having an answer.

 

[poolerboy0077]

If you as an atheist appeal to mystery, you can't accuse the theist of being irrational for having an answer.

Oh?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Sorry, I can't help myself... The atheist part is not really correct.

The theist believes/thinks there is a god.
The atheist does not believe/think there is a god.

That is not the same as saying that the atheist believes / thinkgs that there are no gods..

The question is "do you believe a god exists?"
The atheist answer is "no, I do not".

The question is not "do you believe that no gods exist?"

They are 2 different questions. Atheism is defined only by addressing the first question, not the second.


In any case though, I applaud your honesty.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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").

Saying that you don't know when you don't know is not an "appeal" to ignorance. It's rather and acknowledgement of being ignorant.

God's necessary existence is congruent with monotheist theology, philosophical deduction, and Jewish scriptures. Belief in God's necessity is therefore not arbitrary.

It is arbitrary, because it's just a matter of definitions. There's no data to back up the definitions. The definitions only exist because without them, the theology falls apart.

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.

Sadly, that is the case yes. But at that point, you leave the realm of rational discourse and valid argumentations.

Any "other motivation" you can bring up is simply going to end up rendering your argument fallacious.

An argument is either rational or it isn't. If you are going to say that there are reasons to believe X that aren't rooted in rationality.... well... guess what you are really saying at that point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

. The Universe as we know it hasn't always existed

Except that it did...

"Always" = a period of time. All of time to be exact.

The universe = the space-time continuum.

Time came into existence with the universe.
If the universe exists, time exists.
If time doesn't exist, neither does the universe.

So, the universe existed "for all of time".

Hence, the universe always existed.

Regardless of us puny humans not being able to wrap our brains around the fact that the words "before the universe" make just as much sense as "north of the north pole". Our brains developed to operate on a classical level and deal with macroscopic objects moving at sub-light speeds in temporal states.

Reality doesn't care about our phychological shortcomings.

but something existed prior and nobody knows

There is no "prior".
I realise it smells like a semantic argument, but it is what it is. There's no such thing as "before time".

There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't have all the answers

The wrong answer is more harmful than no answer at all.

At the same time though, there's no shame in being wrong if you don't mind correcting yourself and assuming you had rational reasons for thinking the way you did.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Glancing through this thread I think the OP is still unanswered.

And I am not surprised just one bit.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

any "why" is a something.

So "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a foolish question.

Thats because there cannot be a "why" for nothing, for that would entail a something-nothing, a nothing with a something to cause it would not be a true nothing, because there would then be a something (a cause) rather then a nothing.

And any "why-something" (ie a cause of something) would logically entail that there would be an unexplained why, ie. the something prior to the present something would have to have a cause, which is another something to explain. Ad infinitum.

So either wwe have another unanswered something (the why there is something needs another explanation itself), or the idea of "why" is just plain silly (because a "nothing-cum-something" is absurd).

Hence by RAA (reduction ad absurdum) there cannot be a why for existence or for nothingness. The initial question ("why something rather than nothing?") is absurd, hence the opposite "a priori, there can be no why for either!" must be true.

Sound ok?

 

[KCfromNC]

God's necessary existence is congruent with monotheist theology, philosophical deduction, and Jewish scriptures. Belief in God's necessity is therefore not arbitrary.

You'll need to show your work here rather than just saying therefore and assuming everyone will believe you.

 

[KCfromNC]

The randomness

Why are you assuming randomness?

 

[Tinker Grey]

One would have to determine that nothingness is possible before the question can be answered.

 

[Eudaimonist]

One would have to determine that nothingness is possible before the question can be answered.

That's a good point.

The question "Why is there life on Earth instead of it being lifeless?" is a question that one can approach because it is clear that there are lifeless planets even within our own Solar System. One can easily see that it is possible that a planet such as our Earth could be lifeless, and therefore require an explanation for life. Without that, how can one even approach the issue with the question of causes in mind?

In the case of nothingness, we don't know that it is even possible for a true, pure philosophical nothingness to exist. Without knowledge of that possibility how can one even approach the issue of the causes of something?

But it is even worse than that... how can one even speak of causes of something from nothing? How can nothing cause anything if it is truly nothing? The question is unanswerable, not because we can never know the answer, but because it seems flawed as a question and there can never be an answer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's a good point.

The question "Why is there life on Earth instead of it being lifeless?" is a question that one can approach because it is clear that there are lifeless planets even within our own Solar System. One can easily see that it is possible that a planet such as our Earth could be lifeless, and therefore require an explanation for life. Without that, how can one even approach the issue with the question of causes in mind?

In the case of nothingness, we don't know that it is even possible for a true, pure philosophical nothingness to exist. Without knowledge of that possibility how can one even approach the issue of the causes of something?

But it is even worse than that... how can one even speak of causes of something from nothing? How can nothing cause anything if it is truly nothing? The question is unanswerable, not because we can never know the answer, but because it seems flawed as a question and there can never be an answer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Indeed one cannot even say "God made it from [philosophical] nothingness" explains anything -- or even means anything. (This is why, when a believer, I would say ex Deo rather than ex nihilo.)

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

If matter/energy cannot be destroyed, only changed of form, how can there have ever been a nothing?

If the definition of an absolute nothing is no time, no space, no stuff. How can it even exist? It doesn't by definition.


Why all this ridiculous fascination of something from nothing and trying to cram impossibilities into peoples already taxed brain?


If matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, start with all of it everywhere! Infinite saturate. How do you create a finely tuned universe out of this? Easy, vibrate the saturate into void cavitations (universes) and the forces and properties that were unified get prismed apart into perfect harmony.




Want to know one of the single biggest biases of the human awareness? Exploding outwards from a single point. And so man colors both God and the beginning of the universe with this bias.


The reason why all physics and mathematics breaks down when you cram it all into a singularity is because the universe did not start that way. It's a snipe hunt.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

In the Infinite (endless quark matter ocean) before the beginning scenario, the universe is "ex nihilio" because it is the nothing (void) space created.

Just like sono-luminescence, the "nothing" is a standing wave vacuum bubble (void space) created in water (saturated space) by vibration.



The logic is sound and the mechanisms are easy enough for a child to understand.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Inside the void bubble universe is finite space and relative time. Outside the void bubble universe is infinite space and eternal time.

 

[bhsmte]

Inside the void bubble universe is finite space and relative time. Outside the void bubble universe is infinite space and eternal time.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sure!

The big bang doesn't address where matter and energy came from, it is an observation of the expansion of space.

Same thing in my great contraction theory: void space is created, not the stuff. But what the void space does is throw the stuff into motion and that is the beginning of finite time. Of cyclical time. The beginning of a universe.

Before this, the Stuff is not in motion. In the saturate state there is no empty space to move through, there is only vibration straightly in all directions as a quasi plasma crystal in reverse Zero-G.

The start of a universe is the beginning of all angular momentum and curvature. Of all cycles.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Inside the void bubble universe is finite space and relative time. Outside the void bubble universe is infinite space and eternal time.

Bare assertion.