Why is there something rather than nothing?

[True Scotsman]

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 I get that question all the time and my answer is that there is something instead of nothing because there is something. To ask for an explanation of existence is an improper question. It denies the axiom of existence. The concept of "existence" is an irreducible primary. Existence is perceptually self evident. The question denies the absoluteness of existence. It does not need proof or explanation. It can only be accepted or rejected. But existence must exist even to reject it. Existence is presupposed by any action you take, even the action of denying its existence.

This question stems from an incorrect view of metaphysical primacy. Those asking it hold a primacy of consciousness view of existence which is completely and totally false.


So the answer to the question is there is something because there is something.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well that is not what secular science states.

Secular science doesn't know what things were like in the beginning, so it states nothing on the subject.

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 - ...

Okay?

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.

I don't know what your point is. God doesn't escape any questions that the universe can't.

Why does God or the universe exist? The same sort of answers could probably be given for both.

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".

I'm saying there might have been spacetime in the beginning.

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

Why does God exist?

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".

Yeah I know. We don't KNOW what happen yet.

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".

The conditions of the early universe wasn't the same as it is now, so the same rules may not apply.

Strange things can happen in strange conditions you know.

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

Nuclear energy turns matter into energy. So the two are connected, E=MC^2. I'm not sure if particle accelerators turn energy in to matter.

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.

Well if they are atheists then they aren't convinced by the fine tuning argument (for God). Maybe there are many universes. There are many stars, and people in the past might have found it strange that many Sun-like objects exist.

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.

Yeah I know... I'm not saying we know there are other universes, I'm just saying it's a possibility. There's no evidence for God either.

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".

If that were true, why would that be so crazy?

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

Again, where is the blind faith. I asked last time and you didn't reply.

I'm not saying there definitely are many other universe, but maybe there are, and it isn't a crazy idea. There are much stranger things in this universe.

Also, why is God like he is? Why is God all powerful, omniscient, perfectly moral, etc?

 

[Rubiks]

I personally think that God is the only that can "just exist"

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.

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

Even a self-existent universe makes infinitely more sense than a universe just popping into existence without any cause. Science itself is the search for causes.

I used to think Christianity was just a blind leap of faith. After thinking through the options, I believe God is the only answer that is intellectually satisfying.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Rubiks, why do you think that causing implies being greater?

Also, a universe that has always existed doesn't have to be "capable" at all. It's not like it "began" to do something; it simply is.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Even a self-existent universe makes infinitely more sense than a universe just popping into existence without any cause. Science itself is the search for causes.

I used to think Christianity was just a blind leap of faith. After thinking through the options, I believe God is the only answer that is intellectually satisfying.

indeed that is the right answer.

Even determined atheist scientists like Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind freely admit that coming up with a non-God answer for the "extreme fine tuning problem" requires that one "imagine" 10^500 other imaginary universes trying to get the "odds to become reasonable" for a universe like the one we actually have - with fine tuning out to the level of 10^-120 level of tolerance.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rubiks, why do you think that causing implies being greater?

Also, a universe that has always existed doesn't have to be "capable" at all. It's not like it "began" to do something; it simply is.

Steady State died with a "big bang".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Secular science doesn't know what things were like in the beginning, so it states nothing on the subject.

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

God doesn't escape any questions that the universe can't.

How so???

Why does God or the universe exist?

God by definition is infinite and eternal.

The universe by observation had a beginning.

What is not to get??

I'm saying there might have been spacetime in the beginning.

No matter what cosmologists say to the contrary?

Are you making a Christian argument or an atheist one?

Nuclear energy turns matter into energy. So the two are connected, E=MC^2. I'm not sure if particle accelerators turn energy in to matter.

They don't.

If you ever come up with an experiment that turns energy into matter - let us know.

Well if they are atheists then they aren't convinced by the fine tuning argument (for God).

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??

Maybe there are many universes. There are many stars

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.

Yeah I know... I'm not saying we know there are other universes, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

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?

There's no evidence for God either.

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

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.

Indeed - it goes far beyond any "as luck would have it " scenario that atheists have ever tried to come up with apart from "imagining" 10^500 other failing universes.

Again, where is the blind faith. I asked last time and you didn't reply.

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?

Also, why is God like he is? Why is God all powerful, omniscient, perfectly moral, etc?

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.

But rocks are more of a "studied in the lab" sort of matter - then God is so imagining that rocks can make bacteria or amoebas, or horses or text books on geometry is out of the question.

We can "observe" that creators create... inventors invent. That they use simple constructs to create complex results.

We cannot "observe" rocks engaged in creating life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tinker Grey]

Steady State died with a "big bang".

in Christ,

Bob

Saying that the universe may have always existed in some state is not the same as saying that it existed in steady state.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

Anselm? I personally find the idea of "maximally great" rather fuzzy as a standard. Great in what way? What does "great" even mean here?

I just don't see how a universe is capable of self-existence.

What is the problem with seeing this?

It just seems like a leap of faith to me.

And the existence of God is not a leap of faith? What precisely is more plausible about the self-existence of a God over and above the self-existence of a universe? Since we don't even know what God is, the question is simply made more mysterious.

Even a self-existent universe makes infinitely more sense than a universe just popping into existence without any cause.

I agree, and I don't know many people who think that the universe just popped into existence without any cause. Even people who think that the energy of the universe came from spontaneous virtual particle pairs would still say that there was a quantum mechanical effect that explains where all of that energy comes from.

I used to think Christianity was just a blind leap of faith. After thinking through the options, I believe God is the only answer that is intellectually satisfying.

You haven't given us any reason to think that in this post. All you have done is to play the argument from incredulity card.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you ever come up with an experiment that turns energy into matter - let us know.

It's funny you should mention that. The experiment seems possible with modern technology.

'Einstein Was Right: You Can Turn Energy Into Matter' - Forbes

If this experiment shows that matter can be created from energy, what difference would that make to you? How would you think differently about these issues?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I personally think that God is the only that can "just exist"

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.

I personally think that a maximally effective argument against god(s) is the only thing than can "just exist".

I'll explain. If there was a more effective argument against god(s) were to exist, that thing would in some way, be greater than the most effective argument against god(s), which is a logical absurdity, because the maximally great argument by definition is a maximally great argument.

Since this argument must exist, you can stop believing in god now.

 

[KCfromNC]

Anselm? I personally find the idea of "maximally great" rather fuzzy as a standard. Great in what way? What does "great" even mean here?

It is maximally red. Obviously. All those people telling you the equally-great but mutually exclusive maximally blue god is the one who must exist due to its maximal greatness are evil heretics.

 

[stevevw]

The more we are looking into genetics and quantum physics the more we are seeing a complex world that keeps opening up to us. The quantum world seems to have this quality about it that goes beyond what we understand yet it is suppose to be what everything is made of. So the reality we see is one thing but the world right down to the tiniest particle to almost nothing has an almost magical quality about it. It doesn't make sense to our reality and it contradicts it. Scientists are coming up with hypothesis that seem as far fetched as they claim God to be to explain it. They seem to be trying to minimize the almost creative quality of existence and put an explanation on it.

At the same time we are seeing how existence is so well made up of these fantastic things that we cant even comprehend. They keep saying there will be an explanation and that one day we will be able to understand it. It seems time is the great God when it comes to atheists to explain what we see. Yet time itself can't explain what we are finding and never will. Sure scientists can give an explanation of what they are seeing. But that doesn't mean that this explanation makes everything happen by a natural self creating process. Their explanations are becoming less believable and need more faith the more we get closer to how existence came into our reality.

I look at the universe and nature and life and how incredibly complex it is. How it looks like it has such awe inspiring design and how it all seems to work together. Humans themselves can also create some really fantastic things that are mind blowing. Yet we are suppose to believe that all this as it stands now came from nothing in the very beginning. There was once dark empty space or not even that. I couldn't comprehend what was there to start with but there had to be a beginning according to the naturalistic method. We are suppose to believe that stage by stage something more complex and so well designed came from something before it until we have what we see today. Its like we can have an empty room and than eventually there will be this fantastic machine that will be created within it. Not even time can do that.

 

[Rubiks]

Rubiks, why do you think that causing implies being greater?

Also, a universe that has always existed doesn't have to be "capable" at all. It's not like it "began" to do something; it simply is.

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

 

[Rubiks]

I look at the universe and nature and life and how incredibly complex it is. How it looks like it has such awe inspiring design and how it all seems to work together. Humans themselves can also create some really fantastic things that are mind blowing. Yet we are suppose to believe that all this as it stands now came from nothing in the very beginning. There was once dark empty space or not even that. I couldn't comprehend what was there to start with but there had to be a beginning according to the naturalistic method. We are suppose to believe that stage by stage something more complex and so well designed came from something before it until we have what we see today. Its like we can have an empty room and than eventually there will be this fantastic machine that will be created within it. Not even time can do that.

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.

 

[Rubiks]

I personally think that a maximally effective argument against god(s) is the only thing than can "just exist".

I'll explain. If there was a more effective argument against god(s) were to exist, that thing would in some way, be greater than the most effective argument against god(s), which is a logical absurdity, because the maximally great argument by definition is a maximally great argument.

Since this argument must exist, you can stop believing in god now.

Woah, take it easy bro!

your fallacy is that arguments for and against God exist independent of causation. There are no "maximally great" argument. All arguments either succeed or fail based on whether the premises are true.

 

[Rubiks]

Anselm?

Nope, you're thinking of Alvin Plantinga's version

What is the problem with seeing this?

Universes actually can have causes in thought experiment, Judeo-Christian-esque deities cannot, otherwise, it wouldn't be God.

.

 

[Rubiks]

I personally think that a maximally effective argument against god(s) is the only thing than can "just exist".

I'll explain. If there was a more effective argument against god(s) were to exist, that thing would in some way, be greater than the most effective argument against god(s), which is a logical absurdity, because the maximally great argument by definition is a maximally great argument.

Since this argument must exist, you can stop believing in god now.

And that argument would be?

 

[Rubiks]

Anselm? I personally find the idea of "maximally great" rather fuzzy as a standard. Great in what way? What does "great" even mean here?

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

The neutral properties, like color, do not deter maximal greatness (not to mention God cannot have a color because he isn't a material being)

A maximally great being essentially means having omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to the greatest possible extent.

 

[Gottservant]

Not being able to create everything, does not justify saying there must have been nothing. (selah)