Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Eudaimonist]

A being can either have bad properties, neutral properties, or good properties.

I have no idea what you mean. How are you determining if a property is good, bad, or neutral? And good, bad, or neutral for what purpose?

Universes actually can have causes in thought experiment

Can, but not necessarily.

Judeo-Christian-esque deities cannot, otherwise, it wouldn't be God.

It sounds like you are merely trying to define God into existence. We don't have that godlike power.

I think that believing the design of galaxy all the way to the design of even atom, just coming from nothing, takes way more faith to believe in than God.

Good thing I don't believe in those things either come from nothing or are designed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, I know what your saying. I think that believing the design of galaxy all the way to the design of even atom, just coming from nothing, takes way more faith to believe in than God.

But faith is supposedly a virtue, so if it takes more faith to believe that, then you would be more virtuous by believing it, no?

 

[Belk]

God is a maximally great being. Being caused by something else means God lacks something.

Why does it mean that?

 

[Paradoxum]

You say that like you did not read the "Elegant Universe" or watch any of the documentaries -- are you not watching?

I don't know what you're talking about.

How so???

Well because it doesn't. Name a problem for physical reality that God doesn't have.

God by definition is infinite and eternal.

The universe by observation had a beginning.

What is not to get??

But why does God exist? Saying God is eternal doesn't explain why the eternal thing exists. Why does it exist, rather than not exist.

Also, some Christians would say God is timeless, not eternal, so they wouldn't accept your definition of God.

The Universe began expansion, but that doesn't mean there isn't some timeless reality beyond the universe, that is the reason for the universe existing.

No matter what cosmologists say to the contrary?

Are you making a Christian argument or an atheist one?

I listen to what the scientists say. But they don't know yet.

They don't.

Well I don't trust you to give me correct information on scientific subjects.

Circular argument.

Even I don't argue "well there are Christians that are scientists so that means that there are no problems for the Christian view of the universe in science".

Why would it be right for you to do it??

That isn't what my point was either. You misunderstood what I was saying. It wasn't really an important point anyway, so it doesn't matter.

The universe by definition is "all the stars".

Once the definition of universe is accepted - it is pretty easy to see why "imagining more universes" does not make it so -- or make it science.

I know it doesn't make it so, or make it science. I've said this a number of times now.

What law of physics makes it "possible"?? I can't think of one.

Or are you saying that just as the easter bunny is possible and scientifically sound - good science - so also is other universes possible and scientifically sound?

When I say it is possible, I mean that it hasn't been proven impossible. I'm not saying it is science.

Like, it's possible that aliens are on Pluto right now. That doesn't mean it's been proven to be correct, or even likely.

Until you look out the window and observe a whole lot going on that "Rocks by themselves cannot account for".

Even if we didn't understand any science, that wouldn't be evidence for God.

Where is the "blind faith" in the act of "imagining" 10^500 other entire universes that are all failing??

Where is the "blind faith" in "hoping" that rocks can "account for bacteria, amoebas, horses and text book on geometry"??

Really?

Yes, that's what I'm asking. Though rocks don't exactly lead to bacteria.

Where is the blind faith is saying that billions of other universes are POSSIBLE? Again, I said possible... not proven.

God exists because we have no other "cause" for life, intelligence, morals etc. ... since "rocks" don't seem to possess the wherewithal to pull it all off by themselves.

I was asking why God exists, not the evidence for God. ie: I exist because of my parents... not because I typed this post.

(Chemicals can assemble themselves, and then evolution took over... that explains all life).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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?

Only existent entities that began their existence need a cause. Thus the kalam cosmological argument:

A. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
B. The space-time universe began to exist.
C. The space-time universe has a cause.

But any concept of God excludes from the concept by definition the idea that God began to exist, and therefore God's existence requires no cause.

Or, if you insist that everything that exists must have a ground for existence, I would respond that even if God's existence does need to be grounded, it doesn't require grounding to the same degree that the space-time universe does.

Further, I would note (following Thomas Aquinas) that when we speak of God's existence, we're not speaking univocally. God doesn't exist in the same sense as an apple; the term 'existence' is only applied to both by analogy. In technical philosophical parlance, this is a way of saying that any ontology of God is of a different order than the ontology of anything else. So much so, in fact, that Christian theologians have even argued that arguments for God's existence are ultimately self-defeating, because God cannot be said to 'exist' in any way that anything else which can be shown to exist exists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Only existent entities that began their existence need a cause. Thus the kalam cosmological argument:

A. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
B. The space-time universe began to exist.
C. The space-time universe has a cause.

But any concept of God excludes from the concept by definition the idea that God began to exist, and therefore God's existence requires no cause.

Or, if you insist that everything that exists must have a ground for existence, I would respond that even if God's existence does need to be grounded, it doesn't require grounding to the same degree that the space-time universe does.

Further, I would note (following Thomas Aquinas) that when we speak of God's existence, we're not speaking univocally. God doesn't exist in the same sense as an apple; the term 'existence' is only applied to both by analogy. In technical philosophical parlance, this is a way of saying that any ontology of God is of a different order than the ontology of anything else. So much so, in fact, that Christian theologians have even argued that arguments for God's existence are ultimately self-defeating, because God cannot be said to 'exist' in any way that anything else which can be shown to exist exists.

This doesn't actually answer the OP's question. It merely shifts the problem to "Why is there is something other than God?" In fact, it doesn't even get as far as that; it merely gets us to an uncaused cause whose identity is not established by the argument itself, but is assumed to be identical to whatever God the apologist believes in.

 

[Gottservant]

I think what you'll find is that the creation of the universe is usually explained in a series of contingencies, for which man does not have the constraint to limit, but which God advances the possibility for that "He has the constraint to limit" and therefore, if the choice is between man and God, it can only be God.

But this is faith that the best choice is also the most appropriate, which you might want to justify further before you accept it.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, I know what your saying. I think that believing the design of galaxy all the way to the design of even atom, just coming from nothing, takes way more faith to believe in than God.

Thats right and even though I believe the science method can explain a lot it cant explain everything. But it attempts to because atheists are coming from the position that there is no God and everything has to have an explanation for why it happened. So they can rest on the premise that just because they havnt got an answer now one will eventually come. But what they are seeing in this tiny world that started everything is that the same rules and laws dont apply. So it is beyond those types of explanations and equations. This is what I believe God is and the bible says He is beyond our understanding.

When you think that the universe is so finely tuned and all working together so well and kept in place. One little change and there would have been no life. One change now in the balance of gravity and dark energy and there would be chaos. The universe is expanding faster and faster and we are finding more and more things that go against all these theories that are based on naturalism and a self creating existence. The more we will discover from now on the more we will find amazing things that will go beyond what we can ever understand. But still this world will come up with one reason or another why there is no God and why everything can still happen by itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thats right and even though I believe the science method can explain a lot it cant explain everything.

But religion can explain everything?

But it attempts to because atheists are coming from the position that there is no God and everything has to have an explanation for why it happened. So they can rest on the premise that just because they havnt got an answer now one will eventually come. But what they are seeing in this tiny world that started everything is that the same rules and laws dont apply. So it is beyond those types of explanations and equations. This is what I believe God is and the bible says He is beyond our understanding.

If he is beyond your understanding then why do you and other Christians make definite assertions about his nature and will? You can't say that God is beyond human understanding and then proceed to detail what God is and what he wants of us.

When you think that the universe is so finely tuned and all working together so well and kept in place. One little change and there would have been no life. One change now in the balance of gravity and dark energy and there would be chaos. The universe is expanding faster and faster and we are finding more and more things that go against all these theories that are based on naturalism and a self creating existence. The more we will discover from now on the more we will find amazing things that will go beyond what we can ever understand. But still this world will come up with one reason or another why there is no God and why everything can still happen by itself.

This reads like another God of the gaps type of argument. If there is something that goes beyond what we can ever understand, then it goes beyond what we can ever understand. When we face such a situation the honest response is "We do not know."

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

This doesn't actually answer the OP's question. It merely shifts the problem to "Why is there is something other than God?" In fact, it doesn't even get as far as that; it merely gets us to an uncaused cause whose identity is not established by the argument itself, but is assumed to be identical to whatever God the apologist believes in.

The reason why there is something other than God is because the self expression that was "The Word" was a contractile action. A summation. This caused a super-cavitational wave front that is still traveling in the infinite body of God, leaving perfectly fine tuned universes in it's wake.

Like white light is found no where in the rainbow but is the caused of it's arrangement, so is God the totality is not found inside the universe.

God is solid, the universe is a void space wave form.

 

[stevevw]

But religion can explain everything?

I assume you meant religion can't explain everything. Yes thats right, we have all known this for a while now. But that doesn't stop people from putting forward their hypothesis and beliefs as to how God may have been involved. If God could be proven then there would be no need for faith. That is why Jesus emphasizes that faith is the only way to be saved. He knew this long before we got to where we are today. God is beyond our reality so it cannot be proven. We can only get some indirect evidence to present.

If he is beyond your understanding then why do you and other Christians make definite assertions about his nature and will? You can't say that God is beyond human understanding and then proceed to detail what God is and what he wants of us.

Because we can get to know some aspects about God. The bible gives us some of the knowledge with direct verses that talk about His qualities. We can know of these words describing Him but we cant fully comprehend the magnitude of what they are talking about. Jesus is another way we can know God. Jesus says when you look at Him you are seeing God. So all the great things Jesus did and said is also knowing what God is like.

Lastly the Holy spirit which is probably the greatest way. Because not only does the Holy Spirit remind us of who God is and what Jesus said but also of all the secrets of God on a day to day basis. This is where believers will get their visions and insights of God and His will in their lives. We can actually know about God the same way as the people of the bible knew God as its the same Holy Spirit who goes directly to God and acts as a intermediate between us and God.

This reads like another God of the gaps type of argument. If there is something that goes beyond what we can ever understand, then it goes beyond what we can ever understand. When we face such a situation the honest response is "We do not know."

Yes but if as a believer I am made aware of the greatness of God through a vision or revelation that is given to me that may involve something great then I can see the greatness of God and still not be able to comprehend what it means. When some of the astronauts went into space they said that they were struck with a revelation of God. That was the first thing that had hit home to them. The holy spirit had spoken to them.

So when they seen the vastness of space up close they seen God. Now they could never understand what that represented but they can testify that this is what they seen of God. So we can see Gods greatness and it can blow us away because we cannot even comprehend what we are seeing. Just because we dont fully understand doesn't mean we can still know that it comes from God and is a part of Him.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll explain. If God were to have a cause of his existence, that thing would in some way, be greater than God, which is a logical absurdity, because God by definition is a maximally great being.

Yes. By definition. Not by observation, not by testability, not by verification,... Merely by definition.

An arbitrary defintion, designed specifically to make the above (non-)argument.

It's completely useless, has no explanatory power whatsoever, is not demonstrable, is not supportable,... It's just an arbitrary definition created out of intellectual lazyness.

I just don't see how a universe is capable of self-existence. It just seems like a leap of faith to me.

False dichotomy. Pretending that a "self-existent universe" (whatever it is you mean by that) is the only possible alternative to the god that was arbitrarily defined out of intellectual lazyness.

Science itself is the search for causes.

No. Science is the search for explanation.

I used to think Christianity was just a blind leap of faith.

Then you used to be correct.

After thinking through the options

There's your first mistake: assuming to know all the options. And even assuming the god of the bible is a valid option to begin with.

I believe God is the only answer that is intellectually satisfying.

If it was truelly intellectually satisfying, you wouldn't need to start your sentence with "I believe....". In fact, the fact that you do start your question like that, kind of exposes the leap of faith you are making.

Thanks for playing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God exists because we have no other "cause" for life, intelligence, morals etc. ... since "rocks" don't seem to possess the wherewithal to pull it all off by themselves.

Argument from ignorance, right out of the gate.

We cannot "observe" rocks engaged in creating life.

Strawman. Who claims that rocks create life?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

This doesn't actually answer the OP's question. It merely shifts the problem to "Why is there is something other than God?" In fact, it doesn't even get as far as that; it merely gets us to an uncaused cause whose identity is not established by the argument itself, but is assumed to be identical to whatever God the apologist believes in.

Actually, I completely agree. Proving the existence of an Uncaused Cause does not necessarily establish that It should be equated with any particular deity conceived of by the world's religious cultures. That's yet to be proven.

My own concern, in keeping with the limited subject of the OP, is to demonstrate that some form of non-religious theism (mere belief in a creator-god, whether deistic or monotheistic or one god among many in a polytheistic system) is not subject to the same criticisms ("why is there x instead of not x?") as affirmative atheism.

 

[poolerboy0077]

You can't prove the existence of possible beings without evidence. You can, however, use pure reason to eliminate impossible beings, such as definitions of God that lead to a contradiction (e.g., an atemporal, changeless, disembodied mind that can think; a perfect being that requires worship; etc.).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You can't prove the existence of possible beings without evidence. You can, however, use pure reason to eliminate impossible beings, such as definitions of God that lead to a contradiction (e.g., an atemporal, changeless, disembodied mind that can think; a perfect being that requires worship; etc.).

You're simply claiming that the universe doesn't count as evidence. But it seems eminently sensible to claim that all entities that have a beginning to their existence have a cause, and that therefore the universe- which at some point began- has a cause. And that cause, necessarily, would then be capable of causing the universe and stand outside of space and time.

And yes, reason should seek to eliminate contradictions in human conceptions of God or whatever we want to call the entity that created the universe. But it's not necessarily a contradiction to claim that an atemporal, changeless, disembodied mind can think; it simply means that whatever we mean when we assert 'God thinks,' we don't mean God is thinking in a way equivocal to human thinking (which requires a brain). As for your second example, I wholeheartedly deny that God 'needs' worship, or that that has ever been the classic Christian (or, especially, Aristotelian) understanding of why creatures worship the Creator. In fact, it's a fairly facile understanding of what worship is (certainly not just singing praise songs for God's benefit).

 

[Gottservant]

The question begins within the questioner, not within the whole Universe (selah)

(therefore the answer lies within, not without)

 

[stevevw]

In physics there has to be a beginning in the natural world. If there is a beginning then then has to be something that started it. Nothing can't produce something. The theories that some scientists try to promote about nothing really having something to it are baseless. Because there had to be at some point truly nothing. Thats no sub atomic particles that some say is really nothing when they point to black empty space. So truly nothing can only produce nothing. So if something has come from nothing then there had to be something that made that something. That something would have to have the ability to create.

How does this imply a Creator? First, in physics, nothing physical could exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to the beginning point” because there is no physical time).

Secondly, if the physical universe (and its physical time) did not exist prior to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. It is important to note that “nothing” means “nothing.” It does not mean a “vacuum” or “a low energy state of a quantum field,” “empty space,” or other real things. Vacuums, empty space, and low energy states in quantum fields are dimensional and orientable – they have specific characteristics and parameters, but "nothing" is not dimensional or orientable, and it does not have any specific characteristics or parameters because it is nothing. For example, you can have more or less of a vacuum or empty space, but you cannot have more or less of nothing because nothing is nothing.

Thirdly, nothing can do only nothing, because it is nothing. To imply the contrary is to make nothing into something. The classical expression is right: “from nothing, only nothing comes.”
Fourthly, if nothing can’t do anything, then it certainly cannot create anything. Thus, when the universe was nothing, it could not have created itself (made itself into something) when it was nothing, because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing.


Finally, if the universe could not have made itself into something when it was nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe into something when it was nothing, and that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it). This transcendent (and independent) creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics implies a transcendent powerful creative force (i.e., a “Creator&#8221.
How Contemporary Physics Points to God | Strange Notions

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, I completely agree. Proving the existence of an Uncaused Cause does not necessarily establish that It should be equated with any particular deity conceived of by the world's religious cultures. That's yet to be proven.

My own concern, in keeping with the limited subject of the OP, is to demonstrate that some form of non-religious theism (mere belief in a creator-god, whether deistic or monotheistic or one god among many in a polytheistic system) is not subject to the same criticisms ("why is there x instead of not x?") as affirmative atheism.

But it doesn't escape the same criticisms. It merely shifts the problem to "Why is there something instead of just God?" "God" here being defined by the argument simply as an "uncaused cause" and nothing more.

You're simply claiming that the universe doesn't count as evidence. But it seems eminently sensible to claim that all entities that have a beginning to their existence have a cause, and that therefore the universe- which at some point began- has a cause. And that cause, necessarily, would then be capable of causing the universe and stand outside of space and time.

As argued by Scott Clifton, if the universe counts as evidence, and we don't cherry-pick from our experiences, then the argument leads us to conclude that the universe had an efficient and material cause, contrary to the primary theological commitments of most apologists (creatio ex nihilo). If the universe counts as evidence, then apologists must be held to that, even when the evidence runs counter to doctrine.

And yes, reason should seek to eliminate contradictions in human conceptions of God or whatever we want to call the entity that created the universe. But it's not necessarily a contradiction to claim that an atemporal, changeless, disembodied mind can think; it simply means that whatever we mean when we assert 'God thinks,' we don't mean God is thinking in a way equivocal to human thinking (which requires a brain).

I'm not sure how to respond to this, as it simply reads as follows: "When we say 'God thinks,' we don't really mean 'God thinks.'" If you wish to posit a deity capable of thought, then you are inevitably going to face scrutiny over how such a being is capable of thought given an atemporal, changeless state. If the universe counts as evidence, as you stated earlier, then why doesn't the nature of minds also count as evidence? Whether it is over the concept of cause or our understanding of minds, it seems that with these types of arguments apologists are always demanding that exceptions be made for the sake of theological doctrine.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In physics there has to be a beginning in the natural world. If there is a beginning then then has to be something that started it. Nothing can't produce something. The theories that some scientists try to promote about nothing really having something to it are baseless. Because there had to be at some point truly nothing. Thats no sub atomic particles that some say is really nothing when they point to black empty space. So truly nothing can only produce nothing. So if something has come from nothing then there had to be something that made that something. That something would have to have the ability to create.

We don't know if pure nothingness was ever a real state of affairs, much less one that precedes somethingness.

How does this imply a Creator? First, in physics, nothing physical could exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to the beginning point” because there is no physical time).

That's incorrect. Something physical could exist, but in an atemporal state.

Finally, if the universe could not have made itself into something when it was nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe into something when it was nothing, and that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it).

Well, then you're first statement - that there was nothing - is completely wrong. There was something, namely the "something else" to which you refer.

that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it).
This transcendent (and independent) creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics implies a transcendent powerful creative force (i.e., a “Creator&#8221.
How Contemporary Physics Points to God | Strange Notions

How does something that is transcendent, immaterial produce a material effect? When we examine the causes and effects that we are familiar with, we find matter interacting with matter. The billiard ball hits the billiard ball and sends it across the table. Given that the cause you are positing isn't made of matter, how is it able to interact with matter?