Why is it wrong to think the universe came from nothing?

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
AUS-LGBT's picture
Why is it wrong to think the universe came from nothing?

I was reading "A Universe from Nothing"written by theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Maxwell Krauss, I only just started reading it but I was really interested in a specific chapter so I skipped to it which is chapter 9 "Nothing Is Something" and it basically states, unless I mistook it having not read all the previous chapters, that something can come from nothing. It goes on to say in a brief summary "that something can arise from empty space precisely because the energetics of empty space, in the presence of gravity, are not what common sense would have guided us to suspect before we discovered the underlying laws of nature."

I cant remember who said that the universe cant come from nothing but I'm pretty sure I saw it on this site a while back, so I'm curious why is it wrong to think the universe came from nothing?

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.

Meepwned's picture
Nothing has ever been

Nothing has ever been demonstrated coming from true philosophical nothing. Empty space isn't exactly nothing. It's more like a quantum vacuum as it is still governed by physics.

True philosophical nothing means literally nothing. No space, no laws, no matter, no time, no universe, no everything.

The issue is the definition used for "nothing".

We simply do not know what exactly happened before, if there was even a before, or during the initial start of the cosmic inflation, as the laws of physics seem to break down more, the closer we get to the event. Quantum physics may hold the answer, but I do not know.

I'm a layman, who is self educated on the subject, so I may be wrong.

AUS-LGBT's picture
Has it ever been proven that

Has it ever been proven that nothing, complete nothingness, exists? I'm pretty new at this and don't have a science education either, apart from bio in high school, so I don't know if that's a stupid question or not lol

Stare's picture
It's definitely NOT a stupid

It's definitely NOT a stupid question.

However, how some of us humans namely theists go about it is probably very very wrong.

All of science basically wants to solve this problem, and the physics Lawrence Krauss underlines I think is at the forefront of this search for origin/nature of reality.

At bottom, quantum fluctuation stuff probably generated time and space, or simply put, time and space may be emergent.

This's why a silly question, may be if God came "before" the big bang as Meepwned pointed out above, because there was probably no time in order for something or anything at all to "precede" these quantum fluctuations. On that note, we may have to change our understanding of nothing, because scientific theory indicates that rather than nothing, something always existed at bottom, namely quantum fluctuations.

Check out Lawrence's short, clear youtube video: "Flavors of nothing, by Lawrence Krauss on youtube"

JazzTheist's picture
I agree that quantum physics

I agree that quantum physics could have caused time and space; but I'm afraid that's not even a sufficient answer and it only sets back the problem. What mechanism causes (or determines) quantum physics to behave in the way we observe instead of, you know, otherwise? And what mechanism causes that mechanism? The only two options are either infinite regress or a prime mover as the first cause (aka God).

Nyarlathotep's picture
JazzTheist - The only two

JazzTheist - The only two options are either infinite regress or a prime mover as the first cause (aka God).

Smells like a false dichotomy, imo.

JoC's picture
Nyar, it isn't a false

Nyar, it isn't a false dichotomy. Restated, it goes:

There are only two options: either an infinite regress, or a finite one. (basically, A or not A). The finite one requires a first cause.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - Nyar, it isn't a false

JoC - Nyar, it isn't a false dichotomy....basically, A or not A...

I agree with you that A and ~A are not a false dichotomy. That is not controversial. But that isn't what he said, that is what you said.
-------------------------------------
He said:

JazzTheist - ...either infinite regress or a prime mover...

That is controversial.

JazzTheist's picture
Demonstrate how it is a false

Demonstrate how it is a false dichotomy. Perhaps provide a third option.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist
Maybe the world is inevitable, who knows. Not a big fan of trying to classify answers to questions we don't know; heck, we might be asking the wrong question to start with.

It is far from clear those are the only two choices, so for practical reasons you shouldn't be relying on controversial statements like that to try to convince us; even if you feel they are true.

JazzTheist's picture
Again, if so, show me how it

Again, if so, show me how it is controversial by demonstrating a third option. I can hardly see how that's a false dichotomy since it is ''A or not A'' as JoC clearly stated.

Cognostic's picture
Prime mover like a god or an

Prime mover like a god or an infinite regress. Asserting what you can not know does not make your assertion true. You must first prove that there is an infinite regress and that it can be applied to the universe. Then you have to prove there is a prime mover that exists without itself being part of an infinite regress. SHORT ANSWER: You do not get to think a god into existence. It is not up to us to disprove your dumb-shit assertions. It is up to you to PROVE THEM.

ANOTHER OPTION: The universe always existed, there is no regress, there is only expansion ans contraction and re-expansion. If your god is infinite, there is no reason at all the universe can not be infinite.

WHAT IF YOU JUST STOPPED ALL THE BULLSHIT AND PRETENDED THAT YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE A FRIGGING CLUE.

JazzTheist's picture
WHAT IF YOU JUST SHUT UP AND

WHAT IF YOU JUST SHUT UP AND ADMIT THAT YOU'RE STUCK IN A NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW.

Enough said. You reject supernatural BY DEFAULT. It doesn't matter the fact that existence itself requires a higher source to answer why it exists. You're gonna say it's false because higher sources don't exist. What a prerequisite.

In short, you want evidence? Existence. That's the evidence.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Most people reject the super

Most people reject the super natural because it is not falsifiable.
Furthermore, it requires the collapse of the laws of physics and nature.

As this appears to not be the case, a naturalistic world view is the more accurate model of the universe and its contents.

Nothing compares to its predictive qualities, nor its ability to explain the reality we all share.

Existence is also better understood through the lens of naturalism as oppose to a theistic outlook.

JazzTheist's picture
Naturalism only explains how

Naturalism only explains how things work inside this universe. It's never going to explain why things exist.

In order for A to cause B, they have to be separate.

Every contingent thing has a cause. The universe is contingent.

Therefore, what caused the universe is separated from the universe.

There, I've demonstrated the existence of the supernatural.

If you continue to cry ''physical evidence'' then I don't know what to say. I don't need to dig into the ground to show you that buildings have foundations.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Everything within the

Everything within the universe appears to be contingent, the universe itself is not proven to be so.

JazzTheist's picture
How so?

How so?

LogicFTW's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist

Ah ha! I found your problem:

It doesn't matter the fact that existence itself requires a higher source to answer why it exists.

You or I, or anyone else have no way of knowing if this is true or not. Just like the rest of the first mover argument stuff, it is a big fat: "we do not know."

YOU CANNOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM: "We do not know."

As much as you may want to, as much as it makes you feel good.

If you need to lie to yourself so you can sleep better at night, that is fine. Just do not try to think you are right and other people are wrong and then go to debate boards and explain why you are right and they are wrong. Here on these debate forums many of us require a lot more then "we do not know, therefore: god/my religion idea."

There is absolutely nothing that supports the idea that there must be a higher source to answer why the universe exists. I can come up with dozens of ideas why the universe exists each can be ridiculous or even make sense, but they would all share the same basis of possibility and likelihood and reality as your particular idea because yeah, you know the drill by now, there is zero actual reality based evidence for it. Worse still it is likely we will never be able to know what happened before the big bang. All we can do is theorize and realize any theory is just as likely as the next.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

JazzTheist's picture
Again, you're resorting to

Again, you're resorting to physical evidence again, demanding it from things that are not physical. And you're throwing a bunch of random accusations towards me that I can easily falsify. No, feelings are not a reason why I believe in God; and I believe it's you who are lying to yourself.

And the more perplexing thing is, why are you so dishonest and deliberately taking things out of context? The whole thing went like this:

''It doesn't matter the fact that existence itself requires a higher source to answer why it exists. You're gonna say it's false because higher sources don't exist.''

Let me rephrase it a little so that you can understand:

''You're going to deny the fact that existence itself requires a higher source to answer why it exists; because you're just gonna say it's false because higher sources don't exist.''

Got it? So there isn't an argument from ignorance to begin with. You are so desperate and clinging to the last straws that support your worldview. Why are you so passionate about making yourself not believe in God?

LogicFTW's picture
It is only logical, and

It is only logical, and reasonable to expect physical evidence for a claim that has any sort of physical basis.

Your god/religion idea has a physical basis, or you cannot call it god/religion, you would have to twist the commonly held definition for both of those words to make it "work."

What happens when we die? Do we just break back apart to our individual atomic pieces that no longer work together to achieve greater complexity and efficiency? With our own memories stored via bio electrical signal connections fades away as what powers the retention of these memories is no longer there? Or do you have some sort of afterlife thought? Bam. Physical connection.

When you pray for people, do you pray for something physical to change? Even if it doesn't, isn't that expectation of something physical from your god/religion idea?

Sorry you cant dance in and out of physical and nonphysical to keep your god rationalization going. If you want to go purely the god is not physical fine, we will have a debate about that. If your god does have physical realities we will debate about that.

To save you a little time: A purely non physical god idea, is worthless, because the standard for proof, reality etc can be anything, I can make up 1 billion god ideas that are as every bit as likely as your own god idea. If you do want to bring physical into it, dead sea scrolls etc, fine, I get to bring in the overwhelming physical real evidence of why none of the human created god ideas are not even close to an actual likely explanation for reality.

This dancing you do going from "physical" to not as it suits your argument wont work here, sorry. It may work on people that do not examine your argument very closely, but not here. I am going to hold you to what you say, and when I do so, all that squirming is only going to worsen your argument and validity.

I have debated here enough to more readily recognize all the hoops theist jump through to try to make their fairy tale idea work. And I know the ones that visit these boards have had a lot of practice as rationalizing their thoughts, but do not even realize as their thoughts get tested they get further and further into wild and crazy processes to make their "idea" work, like bending the commonly held definitions of words as it suits them.

And you're throwing a bunch of random accusations towards me that I can easily falsify.

What are those, and which please do easily falsify them. I am very interested. If someone could actually present in an evidenced and reasonable way that surmounts the incredible large pile of evidence against their god/religion idea, I would actually agree with them. (Albeit with all the incredible damage that religion has done I will have more then a few choice words for this god idea!)

No, feelings are not a reason why I believe in God; and I believe it's you who are lying to yourself.

Why do you believe in god? You asked the opposite question to us atheist in a different thread, so I ask you why do you believe in your god? Also I am curious what made you go from many years of being an atheist to being a believer? What was the piece you found that made you decide not to be atheist anymore?

I am definitely aware I have some things wrong, I have humility, I do not know everything, but what I do know is, making decisions available on the evidence available to you, the stronger the evidence the better is how you survive in life, how you excel in life. While you can only take my anonymous written word for it, I consider myself very successful in life. I have a good life that has been almost completely free of pain, disaster, loss, fear, hunger, and other undesirable conditions. Sure I may have gotten "lucky" on some of this, my parents are both college educated and were upper middle class, and gave me every chance to succeed. But I also made my own luck. I went to school, found subject matter that is of interest to me and made a career out of it, a career that after a lot of work allows me to make my own hours and work for myself for a very comfortable life. I moved to an area that allows me to best succeed, and surrounded myself with friends and family that also help me succeed, all the while I can help them succeed.

The god religion ideas, would only get in the way of all that. I do not need some god (or person talking about god) tell me what to do, that is all too likely to be abused as there is no evidence behind it, people can say whatever they want when not held to a standard of evidence.

And the more perplexing thing is, why are you so dishonest and deliberately taking things out of context?

So you state above this line: "you're throwing a bunch of random accusations towards me" and then you turn around and say I am dishonest and deliberately taking things out of context.
So you say I am throwing accusations at you, that I am dishonest and I take things out of context. Who is throwing accusations at who? Still going to say it is me?

You're gonna say it's false because higher sources don't exist.''

Close, but a key difference: We have no proof or evidence that higher sources exist. Do I know everything? No, of course not. Is it possible your god exactly how you understand it exist? Yes, but is it equally possible that 1 of basically infinite other possibilities also exist? Yep. Which means in this infinite choice your evidence idea is just as relevant or irrelevant as all the rest. However, we have this neat little thing called testing and evidence in this physical world that we reside in, and has real consequences for us. You cannot cross a busy super highway blindfolded on faith. Reality rules the day here in our little world. The unevidenced stuff can be talked about, but cannot be used to make one random idea any better or more likely then the next. We have to be able to filter the relevant from the non relevant, unevidenced god/religion ideas is NOT relevant, may be fun to talk and think about, but cannot be used to set morality, to create laws, it CANNOT be allowed to have these unevidenced opinions be pushed on others. Which does happen, to a great extent, and all the time to the most vulnerable of us. Children that are trying to learn about the world and what is important. Freedom of religion and speech is very important, one worth protecting, but freedom from being brainwashed or having unevidenced opinions of others forced on us in our most vulnerable moments is also incredibly important, arguably MORE important.

You are so desperate and clinging to the last straws that support your worldview.

Uh, I am not feeling desperate at all, you are allowed to think that. Also I am not on my "last straws," I could write books on what supports my world view, in fact I do not need to, I can point to any carefully written well evidenced book/media that explains what testing and research and fact finding has found us so far. I can go read a book on chemistry and learn how to take base resources to make iodine to clean the water so I can greatly reduce the chances of dysentery if I need to drink water from a creek. What will the knowledge of the bible do for you if you found yourself in the woods forced to fend for yourself without all the modern tools that science and discovery based on evidence done for us? If you were forced to live on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean what book would you bring? Your holey babbel? Or a book on how to survive long enough on the resources available on the island and that also contains instructions on how to build a seaworthy boat that can allow you to escape to the mainland?

Why are you so passionate about making yourself not believe in God?

I never believed in god in the first place. I am not passionate about making my self not believe in god, But I do fully admit I take a guilty pleasure in crushing theist arguments of their god into the ground as it is so easy to do so. Everytime I see a theist twist themselves into a pretzel trying to explain their view it is humour to me. Yes a dark humour, because I recognize all the incredible damage the various religions have done and continue to do. But without humour, life does get a bit bleak at times.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Cognostic's picture
There is no REJECT

There is no REJECT SUPERNATURAL BY DEFAULT. Why don't you quit being OBTUSE. Demonstrate what you are talking about when you assert something called supernatural exists or admit that you haven't a clue what in the hell you are talking about. Put up or shut up.

Prove existence requires a higher source. Another inane assertion with no facts or evidence to substantiate the claim. I never said it was false and I never said a higher source did not exist., NOW YOU ARE JUST LYING. I have specifically asked you for facts and evidence supporting your claim. SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT.

Existence is not evidence of anything but itself. A is A. A is not non A . Something is either A or non A. Prove the supernatural is real and stop playing the victim.

arakish's picture
Hey JoC.

Hey JoC.

You come back to accept my challenge of diving into the septic tank and pick God's Nastiest Turd?

rmfr

David Killens's picture
You beat me to it

You beat me to it Nyarlathotep.

It is a false dichotomy because it assumes that the universe came from nothing.

There may be other options. For example, it is possible that what this universe is part of, is infinite in age, it has always been around in one form or another.

Diotrephes's picture
David Killens,

David Killens,

"For example, it is possible that what this universe is part of, is infinite in age, it has always been around in one form or another."

Would the half-life of elements determine how long the universe could exist? For instance, iron-60 has a half-life of 2.6 mllion years. So it always has to be be "recreated". Tellurium-128, on the other hand, has a half-life of 7.7 x 10^24 years (7.7 x 1 septillion years).

Cognostic's picture
Another moronic comment. Do

Another moronic comment. Do you not understand that quantum physics DOES NOT BEHAVE THE WAY WE OBSERVE. That is why we say "I don't know." Our physics completely breaks down at Planck time/.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I would simply ask, can one

I would simply ask, can one of these people please describe the mechanisms, mechanics of this 'first cause'.

JazzTheist's picture
It, by definition, has every

It, by definition, has every imaginable and possible mechanism. Because it has to provide existence for every imaginable and possible mechanism.

JazzTheist's picture
How can you be so close

How can you be so close-minded, jackass? Is quantum physics contingent, yes or no?

arakish's picture
Breezy (posing as JazzTheist)

Breezy (posing as JazzTheist): "How can you be so close-minded, jackass?"

I don't know. Please explain to me why you can be so closed-minded and you will have answered your own question. JACK-ASS!

rmfr

David Killens's picture
AUS-LGBT I will attempt to

AUS-LGBT I will attempt to describe what nothing isn't. I can't describe nothing, and after my description you may understand why.

Imagine you have traveled into the most remote region of space, where there isn't even an atom within ten billion light years. That isn't even close to "nothing", at best we can describe it as empty space. Because even there, light photons are passing through, So are other forms of radiation like cosmic rays. As well, gravity is influenced. And all are subject to time. So even where there is nothing physical, it is still not "nothing". There is a lot going on in this empty space, from radiation to light to gravity, and time.

Yea, my head hurt for a month trying to digest this concept.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
But most people don't equate

But most people don't equate nothing specifically physical things. Its expected that the term applies to radiation and gravity, and whatever other something there is.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.