Is this possible:A universe from nothing?

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
algebe's picture
@science follower: "Also I

@science follower: "Also I was taught that God was perfect and he made man in that state of being"

So a perfect being created other perfect beings. What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah. The talking snake. But then Lucifer was also a perfect being created by a perfect being. In any case, why would a perfect being need company?

"There just are to many compatible things in life to say this was just an accident."

Name one. Name just one thing in the history of life on Earth that isn't compatible with the idea of life starting spontaneously (by accident, as you say). I think you're confusing hard to understand with incompatible.

Name one single life phenomenon that even hints at intelligent design.

bigbill's picture
I would have to say the brain

I would have to say the brain. science still can`t give a credible explanation for why we have conscious and why we make decisions, Also the dna that comes from the cell, this is a genius work.When you look at how the body works and all the limbs and parts the eye the ear how could we get all of this by accident as you suggest Algebe. Mankind is so far beyond the other things of the world. Animals can`t even tome close to conducting like Mozart or bethoven . Or are they capable in a great sculptor or painting.Yes Algebe I question why these things are common.And there seems to me a credible explanation so far as intelligent design.

algebe's picture
The brain? How can you say

The brain? How can you say that? The human brain is a fragile, unreliable organism that is prone to malfunctions and breakdowns. What kind of intelligent designer would create something like that? If we were all Mozarts and Einsteins your argument might have some validity, but what about all the Hitlers, Stalins, serial killers, and Justin Bieber fans in the world?

Consciousness is not understood now, but that doesn't make it an unfathomable mystery. I believe that human self-awareness evolved along with language, which is one of the most important evolutionary adaptations of our species. Consciousness will be fully understood, probably within the next few years. It will also be recreated in computers. God is redundant.

We have limbs because large mammals without functioning limbs (apart from marine mammals) wouldn't be around long enough to produce offspring. Limbs are evolutionary improvements that confer an advantage, allowing animals to live longer and have more offspring. They go back a long way before our species came along. The same is true of eyes and ears. Deaf, blind, limbless animals are dinner. The only designers are evolution, selection, predation, survival, and sexual reproduction. And they're NOT intelligent.

LogicFTW's picture
I think science already has

I think science already has the answer to "consciousness" we just do not like the answer, so we ignore it and hope for a better answer. But yes, certainly the brain is not fully understood yet, and may never be. It is quite complex, I would say it is not more complex than roughly 13.7 billion years of nearly infinite random chance complex though. And like Algebe said it is far from perfect, this supposed all powerful god created humans in his image could not create a brain complex enough to fix a myriad of major flaws we have in many different human brains?

LogicFTW's picture
You say you were christian at

You say you were christian at one time. If I recall correctly you say you are agnostic now, in a different thread?

You believe in the possibility of a god or (gods) just think it is unlikely and you are unsure?

Remember the generally accepted definition of god:
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

You think it is at least say 10% or higher possibility that: there is some being that requires worship and has power over nature and human fortunes, and/or the ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority?

RedleT's picture
@ Algebe

@ Algebe

We cannot imagine nothing but we can have a conceptual idea of it. Try imagining justice... you think of a judge or something. However, you know what justice is.

algebe's picture
@Dumb Ox.

@Dumb Ox.

We have metaphors, but that doesn't mean we can really conceptualize these things. And justice is a childishly simple concept compared with nothing.

We are three-dimensional beings living living in a universe that evolves through time. That limits our capacity to perceive and conceptualize. Christians are always talking about immortality, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, but they can't really conceive the meanings or implications of these words.

bigbill's picture
So far the jury is out,

So far the jury is out, cosmologist are still trying to determine what actually happened before the big bang. Was it a God or Gods that brought time into being or was it something else.The big bang originated 13.8 billion years ago they tell us. was it chemicals gases or what was it.

xenoview's picture
science follower

science follower
Science has not proven any god. There is no evidence for any of the gods humanity worships. Science may never know what happened before the big bang.

LogicFTW's picture
Yes, the jury is still out on

Yes, the jury is still out on what happened before the big bang. There is also still plenty to be learned about the big bang itself.

Trying to equate that these various religious gods are on even ground of a theory as other possibilities

What we do know is: that a god depicted by all the major religions is extremely unlikely to exist, so unlikely it is ludicrous and foolish to even consider that one of these religion god ideas exist as they are described in these religions. It is even more insane to take these religion god ideas as an explanation for what happened before the big bang. Taking a soundly disproven idea to try and explain another idea we do not yet understand is not rational. Worse still to try and use this not well understood idea to try and in turn, prove the disproven idea.

It gets a little better if we change the definition to god to some loosely defined greater being that played some sort of hand in the creation of the universe. But even this god concept left no evidence we can find of it's presence beyond a nice answer to "what started it all?"

Sky Pilot's picture
Everytime I read some

Everytime I read some comments about the Big Bang I RFLMAO. There are a lot of Little Bangs. They are stars going supernova. There never was one massive star that went supernova and created the universe.

LostLocke's picture
That's not an issue then

That's not an issue then because no one says that's what happened.

bigbill's picture
yes, and that I feel leaves

yes, and that I feel leaves us in a paradoxical situation. Should one believe in man made explanations of a god or gods? Or should he remain neutral here? The Christians teach that one should be devoted to Christian worship of there savior Jesus Christ, The other 2 major faiths islam and Judaism teach something entirely different. On what side are you on reader?

LogicFTW's picture
No. One should not believe in

No. One should not believe in man made explanations of god(s). Because the explanations of god have no supporting evidence.

It is like saying: "Benny-the-crazy-clown stole my toy cars," when I have not even given any real proof that Benny-the-crazy-clown even exist. Saying: "See? My toy cars are missing proves Benny-the-crazy-clown's existence!" Is an obviously silly statement that no normal educated adult would accept. It is theoretically possible, benny-the-crazy-clown exists but highly, highly unlikely, and it is even more unlikely that this unlikely BTCC is behind the disappearance of my toy cars.

bigbill's picture
tw how would you feel about a

tw how would you feel about a prophet in the old testament Judaism that was man made and a lot of what they said came about. Also how are in Christianity where some apologists for Christianity say that the bible is inspired. I f this is so then how can we not count them as being reliable.Man was dictating as he was being guided by God the Christian would parody.

LogicFTW's picture
I would say to any one

I would say to any one talking about a supposed prophet "because of god" that made predictions that came true, why not another prophet that is allowed to much easier and short term predictions in a test environment? Why is it when in the bright lights of a lab to verify the ability to tell just 10 seconds into the future every time these supposed prophets fail?

Stories about prophets being accurate long after their predictions occurred is no evidence at all.
"I predicted the US will have its first black president in 2008 and part of his name will be similar to certain well known man in the middle east.. back in 1998" Do you believe me? Why not?

Sky Pilot's picture


Mussolini made a prediction in 1934, at the height of Jim Crow in America, that America would have a black President within the next 100 years. His prediction came true within 74 years.

LogicFTW's picture
Heh, interesting. Have not

Heh, interesting. Have not heard that before, Apparently even italian fascist dictators can have some insights into the future come true.

Goes to show people that never claim to be prophets can occasionally correctly predict things, religious individuals have no monopoly on predicting the future.

Nyarlathotep's picture
GreatIAM - INfinity is not

GreatIAM - INfinity is not taken seriously by any of leadears in there respected field

It is by anyone how knows calculus. I deal with them every day.

Sky Pilot's picture


The problem with the question is that we have a very difficult time comprending what "Nothing" is and what its properties are. Suppose you were whizzing along in your spaceship at the rate of 100,000 light years per second and you hit a true void in space where nothing at all exists. What would happen to you and to your spaceship? Would you vanish? Could you endure the cold or would there be any coldness at all?

Watch this video to get a grip on the problem.

David Hoe's picture
You look at this ; https:/
Sky Pilot's picture


That's a silly diagram. It depicts the universe as being shot out of a cannon barrel in one direction with us being at the farther point from the origin, 13.7 billion years. We should know that it's silly because if that was actual reality everything in all directions away from the origin would be less dense.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Diotrephes - It depicts the

Diotrephes - It depicts the universe as being shot out of a cannon barrel in one direction with us being at the farther point from the origin, 13.7 billion years. We should know that it's silly because if that was actual reality everything in all directions away from the origin would be less dense.

Actually It is a 2d graph that has time on the x axis, and the 3 spacial dimensions compressed on to the y axis. That is why it does not look like you expect.

LogicFTW's picture
Uh.. the "diagram's x axis is

Uh.. the "diagram's x axis is time, it is labeled as such. The y axis shows the expansion although they did not label it as such. I suppose it is a bit confusing. Also no where does it indicate we (our galaxy/solar system) are at the farthest point from origin. Our galaxy is not labeled or pointed out at all.

Perhaps examine the diagram before you bash it for flaws?

Edit: nylar beat me to it ;)

LogicFTW's picture
I would say to any one

To build on diotrophes point,

Another problem with infinite nothing, no matter what efforts are made, you will eventually return in the direction towards where you left as you approach infinite time chasing after infinite nothing.

You cant go perfectly in one direction forever, because perfect doesn't exist. Even if you are only off by 1 degree every 1 trillion years of traveling, (an absolute incredible feat in accuracy) 180 trillion years later you will be circling back to where you started. You could never successfully test if you can go in 1 direction forever to reach the end of "space."

ZeffD's picture
In this context there might

In this context there might be different definitions of 'nothing', but I think the singularity itself is problematic for the Big Bang Theory. Still more problematic: what comes 'before nothing'! It appears to me we are talking in terms of hypotheses. The Big Bang Theory is far less well substantiated than other scientific theories, such as Evolution or Einstein's theories of relativity which are far more greatly substantiated. The Big Bang Theory itself is simply extrapolated from the fact that all galaxies beyond our Local Group (of about 31 galaxies) are moving away from us according to observations using methods on the Astronomical Ladder.

From what I have read, it isn't even certain that the galaxies farthest from us are accelerating away from us faster than galaxies closer to us in spacetime. They APPEAR to be, by observations, but that isn't the same thing. I suspect there will be major upsets in the world of Astro-physics in my lifetime and possibly in a few years.

Nyarlathotep's picture
ZeffD - but I think the

ZeffD - but I think the singularity itself is problematic for the Big Bang Theory...The Big Bang Theory is far less well substantiated than other scientific theories

The Big Bang Theory contains no references to singularities, it does not depend on them, or even mention them. It is merely the description of an expanding, homogeneous, isotropic plasma (hot gas); as such it not controversial, and is very well tested against observation.

Randomhero1982's picture
Of course you can get

Of course you can get something from nothing If you take the view of someone like Professor Lawrence Krauss.

You can argue that some dark matter can spontaneously burst into life from nothing... a very simplified argument of this is that of the photon... if a light is off the photon is not there yet when the light is turned on it springs to life so to speak.

There's lots of reasonable arguments for the plausibility of this line of thinking and it's a sight more illuminating then hearing some idiot throwing out the god of the gaps argument to explain it.

Will Carrick's picture
Nothing may not exist. Empty

Nothing may not exist. Empty space is something.

Randomhero1982's picture
The truth of the matter is we

The truth of the matter is we have no idea what nothing actually is, genuine nothingness that is. There is nothing we can test or observe that can be constituted as absolute nothingness and therefore it's a pointless debate really.

The problem is theists try to use the something from nothing argument (usually followed by the god of the gaps quotes) without showing any evidence to prove this.


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.