Hello , I am a devout Christian that has been suffering with an existential crisis for the last 3-4 weeks . I am firm in my position as a theistic evolutionist and am here to ask for a scientific response to the frequently used argument against the Big Bang , which is - How can something come from nothing ? I find this to be very edgy and dull argument in general, but simply lack the scientific terminology to answer properly - any advice ? I'm not sure about me becoming an atheist , but for now my faith realy isn't that strong ever since I started questioning the things that have been shoved in my mounth as scientific fact . The response I get is usually "Just stop questioning" and I am not ok with that , because that's the reason why people think theists are less smart than the average person , or maybe that's what lead to this being a true statistic . To me , God and science can be combined , moreover - they're parallel . God bless you all , I really would love to read your responses .
P.S. I'm fine with a few arguments against Christianity being added here and there , but please don't completely change the topic and care to respond to the question first .
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What scientist said something can come from nothing?
It is a messy question. First off: people can not agree on what "nothing" is. Seems like a reasonably easy thing to define but it isn't. For example when particles are created from the void (something done in labs everyday) is that something from nothing? Some people will say it is, others will say the void isn't nothing. Ask someone you know for an example of "nothing" if you want to watch them squirm.
Physics does not currently have a framework capable of dealing with a system that has 0 spacial points (an attribute some people might assign to nothing, while other will tell you "nothing" can't have any attributes!). So saying what can and can not happen to this "nothing" is wild speculation at best.
------------------------------------
What physics does tell us is there is a non-zero probability of a system to tunnel into a different system, so long as both system contain the same exact quantum numbers. Some examples of these quantum numbers are the : energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, or the electric charge of the system.
For example: if a system which started with a total of 10 units of linear momentum in direction x, might later be found to have undergone some serious changes, but it will still have a total of 10 units of linear momentum in direction x.
While we don't know the quantum numbers of a system of "nothing" (see above), a reasonable guess would be they would have 0's for their energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge.
Interestingly; observation tells us that the mentioned quantum numbers of the universe are within the margin of error of being zero as well. Leaving the door open just wide enough to admit the possibility of a universe from nothing.
Let's make is simple lets say nothing is the absence of dirt or the earth and something is the presence of dirt or the earth.
So then where did the earth come from? To say the absence of dirt caused the appearance of dirt would be in a scientific sense absurd. To say all zero's caused somehow a 10 would be absurd. So to be totally honest their is no door and its not open.
It is well known how to get dirt from "non-dirt"; so I don't know what to make of your statement.
----------------------------------
That isn't what I said. I said we seem to live in a 0 quantum number universe; which is consistent with a universe from nothing (with hand waving arguments anyway, since we don't have a model of nothing to work with).
I believe you are jumping to the wrong first question;
My question to you is " what is a theory in science?"
"How can something come from nothing ? "
Firstly Physics doesn't define nothing as an absolute, so it's possible theists who ask this are simply misconstruing what that means. Secondly no one knows if, or therefor claims that, something came from nothing.
try opening a science book.. try reading any other book than the holy babble
@VIsuo12: "God and science can be combined , moreover - they're parallel"
How does that work?
You find the Big Bang and the idea of a universe from nothing difficult to swallow, but you accept the idea of an eternal magician who can make things from nothing. Your standards of logic seem inconsistent.
Lol so there's no biologists on this forum, but suddenly everyone is a theoretical physicist of sorts.
Hi John!
I'm still here, though I frequently choose not to chime in.
Regards,
"Just a Nurse with a Microscope."
Hey john after studying muscles came first then bones
I am here....
John 6IX Breezy "Lol so there's no biologists on this forum, but suddenly everyone is a theoretical physicist of sorts."
>>You don't have be a theoretical physicist, or even a scientist to recognise how moronic it is to claim the earth is a few thousand years old, with the light from distant stars presumably created en route? You also don't have to be a physicist to spot the basic errors and fallacies creationists and religious apologists use when trying to insert their god into the remaining gaps in our scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.
Most religious apologists can't grasp the basic logical fact that rejecting a claim is not the same as making an opposite claim. So when they claim quite chirpily a universe can't come from nothing, they generally have no idea how stupid they've just made themselves look. only to compound it further when they are told they can't evidence the claim, by immediately insisting you prove something can come from nothing, bless em. Then when you ask them to define nothing they guffaw as if you've lost your mind. The limitations of language to deal with scientific concepts is something the average creationists is blissfully obvious of.
Atheism has nothing to do with where stuff comes from, it just has to do with understanding that religion is a perfect con which millions fall for every day.
As an atheist, I'm puzzled about the way these theists suddenly pop up out of nothing and drop drive-by questions in here, before popping back into oblivion. They seem to think that their questions (which of course nobody here ever thought of before) will trigger matter-antimatter reactions in our brains and magically reconstitute us into god-fearing Xtians.
The question the OP asks is important. How can something come from nothing? And the answers of some people on here are very telling... - depends on what is meant by "nothing". Nothing means nothing. No time, space, matter or energy. We use the term very loosely when say we ask what inside an empty room, we simply say nothing. But the rooms exists. It has air in it. Even if it was a vacuum, energy could exist in the room, etc. Nothing means nothing. No time, space, matter or energy.
The next question would be, did these 4 things begin to exist. The Big Bang theory seems to imply that space, time, matter and energy all came to exist at the Big Bang. The argument can be made that we simply do not know what the universe looked like before the big bang and that space, time, matter and energy existed even before the big bang. I can grant that as a possibility but really, all we have now is that the universe began to exist at the Big Bang.
But then you are also making an assumption that there had to be 'nothing' to begin with,
studies and data show it could very well have been an eternal state of intense heat and density.
you could then infer that virtual particles which can be observed to come in and out of existence
whilst interacting with other particles, could have triggered what we consider to be the big bang.
The simple fact of the matter is that science has the humility to say, we don't know yet! but we're working on it.
A theistic approach foolishly stamps its seal of 'god did it' whenever we reach a hard place.
The big bang was not when the universe begun to exist but a point of rapid expansion.
"But then you are also making an assumption that there had to be 'nothing' to begin with ..."
-exactly. We can then go to two premises, one of which must be true.
1. Space is eternal (has an infinite past)
2. Space is not eternal (has a finite past)
Did I miss anything? The BBT seems to suggest that Space and Time have a finite past. meaning there wouldn't even be a "before" Big Bang as there would be no time. I'm not sure how to answer that "intense heat and density" to account for energy and matter as I'm no expert on the subject. I'd like to read more though.
" virtual particles which can be observed to come in and out of existence"
- Is this from Krauss?
"A theistic approach foolishly stamps its seal of 'god did it' whenever we reach a hard place."
- You're assuming I prescribe to the god of the gaps. I personally would like to know how the universe came to existence precisely because I believe He created it.
at the point of the big bang you could say space time begun as we know it possibly but that does not mean there was nothing before that, the truth is no one knows. but the data leads to the likely hood of a steady state before hand.
no the task is to see beyond this, what happened before this and so on.
-is this from krauss?-
no, it is a prediction that holds up very well through quantum mechanics.
infact, quantum mechanics requires and allows violations of the conservation of energy.
its very well known, predicted and tested and validated.
most theists do prescribe to the god of the gaps, but I am sorry if I stereotyped you.
but I've yet to see anything or read anything that would lead me to believe this is how the cosmos came in to being.
there is no evidence to support it.
The Big Bang is merely the earliest known event in this universe. Treating it as the first event may be similar to dropping a pebble into a pond and then saying that nothing existed before that time.
Hardly. Maybe seeing the pond first take shape would be a better analogy.
How you define first?
LucyAustralopithecus,
The void is super cold, there's no heat in it. https://www.popsci.com/biggest-thing-universe-giant-hole
May I say, and I don't mean to be too critical or strident... but why is it always on atheists or people with a grasp of science to defend what has been tested and proven?
This is something I find when talking to conspiracy theorist and flat earthers... they ask for proof constantly.... well where is your proof?
Show us a working model that concords to reality and can make predictions.
The same is true with theists who use the god of the gaps or apologetics, well show us some solid evidence that doesn't rely on 'scripture'.
Because as someone who had been lucky to never been through any indoctrination at any point of my life, I can say the notion of a god is as likely as Santa Claus... I really don't get it!
But on topic, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
I love it when theists argue that you can not get something from nothing and then proceed to tell you how an imaginary sky fairy did just that!
it is an apologetics go to response, how can something come from nothing?
but let us turn it around, where did god get the materials from to create everything? he must have made them from nothing.
Right:
They tell you nothing is eternal, then before the ink is dry on that they tell you god is eternal.
They tell you god doesn't change, then tell you about how he came to earth as a man.
They tell you something can't come from nothing; but when you look under the cover, the nothing they speak of does not exist. So in essence they are telling you things that don't exist can't make stuff. Well duh.
they are some of the big contradictions that I find, and ones that took me away from Catholicism at a young age.
'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'(Bertrand Russell)
Peaceful warrior,
We know that the world had a beginning but the question is: "what started the universe"?
Pages