Jump to content

Ex Nihilo Nehil Fit, (Nothing Comes From Nothing)


Kaiser01
 Share

Recommended Posts

​ Something from nothing, we have of course, all heard the term. It is one of the most common theological arguments against a Godless universe that something has no ability to come from nothing. It is argued that it is but a contradiction, to think we could have mass, energy, and all the entirety of existence come from literally nothing.

 

And i agree.

 

However, "Nothing" in physics is not the kind of "Nothingness" that we think of when we are addressing the concept of absolute nothingness. The Greeks, considered the concept of true nothingness invalid and they might of been right due to the laws of quantum mechanics and the quantum field. It is argued in theological circles that you must have something self existent (not a cause or effect) to create a universe. "self existent" is a perfectly valid concept and IMO is logical due to the problems associated with a universe (an effect) coming into existence with no cause. We know the quantum field is self existent, energy of this field is constantly popping in and out of existence in what i think (if my science is indeed correct) is a anti-particle and a particle. These particle annihilate one another and no energy was gained or lost yet the annihilation produced an effect. Could the effect of this Quantum fluctuation be the cause of our own universe?

 

It would then be argued that our universe has energy and thus cannot come from something with no energy. However, our universe has a total energy value of zero, absolute zero. This is because the energy of mass in the universe is canceled out by the negative force of gravity. This only works on a flat universe but we know the universe is indeed flat by the use of simple geometry. Our universe is in its totality, nothing, we have zero energy. And if we are nothing? Could we not also come from nothing?

 

Remember the nothingness of what we are talking of is not the same kind of nothingness that creationist like to think of, it is simply a self existent quantum field producing quantum fluctuations with no energy lost or gained. So is God nesesary? Sure God could be the start of the universe but we get a crisis of causality where one self existent something is no more viable than any other until one particular cause is proven. God has not been proven, in any way shape or form, so we currently with our level of understanding see no God involved in the creation of the universe even though he is a possibility. There are an infinite number of possible prime movers to choose from and currently i think quantum mechanics has made the best strides in being our choice of prime mover.

 

So why Theist? Is God nesesary? Why does he still have a place when in face our understanding of reality has led us to believe reality itself is a standard for nothingness and at the same time the standard of something? Nothing from nothing becomes a viable concept when that "nothingness" becomes the standard for what is considered something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Creation ex materia!!!!!!

 

If out of nothing nothing comes, and we are not via matter not god, then creation ex nihlo is impossible for a theist. And if its creation ex material the cosmological argument amounts to the god of the gaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I favor the idea that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus before the Big Bang all of the energy and matter of our universe existed but in a different form. We might never have the technology or understanding to derive what happened before the Big Bang.

 

However Christians who like to use the famous argument ignore the fact that their God comes from nothing. They can't deal with this flaw because to be Christian they must accept God exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Bang was an expansion event. Something exploded. Though admittedly I wasn't there to witness it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

IMO, what quantum physics seems to be suggesting about nothing, is that it really doesn't exist, at least not in a true sense. Maybe I don't understand it.

 

Even if we did claim that nothing begat something, so do they! Irony!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my limited understanding is that even when there is "nothing" or empty space, there is still something. Dark Energy. One of my favorite theories is that the Universe expands, and expands, and expands. Eventually, there will only be black holes, which will themselves fade into nothing. Eventually, all particles, pretty much everything is gone. But Dark Energy is there, and when there is a combination of DE and nothing, particles start popping in and out of existence (QM). Given the right set of circumstances, and time, this could lead to another BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my limited understanding is that even when there is "nothing" or empty space, there is still something. Dark Energy. One of my favorite theories is that the Universe expands, and expands, and expands. Eventually, there will only be black holes, which will themselves fade into nothing. Eventually, all particles, pretty much everything is gone. But Dark Energy is there, and when there is a combination of DE and nothing, particles start popping in and out of existence (QM). Given the right set of circumstances, and time, this could lead to another BB.

 

Exactly, any where there is "nothingness" there is something, that some thing is the quantum field. I think this makes it self existent since it exist by no cause yet encompasses everything, it is in fact a standard for existence, just like God. However, the quantum feild is far simpler than God and is at least mathematically predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

From my limited understanding is that even when there is "nothing" or empty space, there is still something. Dark Energy. One of my favorite theories is that the Universe expands, and expands, and expands. Eventually, there will only be black holes, which will themselves fade into nothing. Eventually, all particles, pretty much everything is gone. But Dark Energy is there, and when there is a combination of DE and nothing, particles start popping in and out of existence (QM). Given the right set of circumstances, and time, this could lead to another BB.

 

Exactly, any where there is "nothingness" there is something, that some thing is the quantum field. I think this makes it self existent since it exist by no cause yet encompasses everything, it is in fact a standard for existence, just like God. However, the quantum feild is far simpler than God and is at least mathematically predictable.

Oh noes you can't call god simple, after all he is immaterial and timeless!!!!!!!

 

 

 

--------------------------------

 

 

But wait, that would mean a rock or air is more complex then a human, after whatever has the less physical complexity or attributes is the most simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Greeks, considered the concept of true nothingness invalid

 

 

This.

 

To me when you are talking about nothing you are talking about just that: no thing.

 

Is it rational to discuss no thing? What would one be discussing? Wendyshrug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Bang was an expansion event. Something exploded. Though admittedly I wasn't there to witness it.

 

I lost a year back in the mid-seventies. Must've happened then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Babylonian Dream

Come on Thumbalina, End3, JayL, i want your opinions.

They're always mysteriously absent from these. Despite them being in the realm of topics they love to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I favor the idea that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus before the Big Bang all of the energy and matter of our universe existed but in a different form. We might never have the technology or understanding to derive what happened before the Big Bang.

 

However Christians who like to use the famous argument ignore the fact that their God comes from nothing. They can't deal with this flaw because to be Christian they must accept God exists.

 

Well i must throw the theist a bone here...

 

The original theist argument of prime mover is, if every EFFECT had a cause, then the universe must have a cause.

When Bertrand Russel first addresses this he made a mistake of thinking the argument stated If everything had a cause, then God too must have a cause.

 

God is not an effect, he has no cause, he does not cause himself, he is simply self existent. So God does not come from nothing, he simply exist. This at first seems like a ludicrous concept but it is actually an extremely logical one. The problem the theist make though is assuming God can be the only self existent something to form a universe, that's where people like WLC fail. Theism has some other problems associated with it in the creation of the universe dealing with, balance, choice and personalism. Ultimately i think there are reason in relation to those three categories stoping theism, or at least a personal God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiser01, How do you determine logically that God doesn't need a cause? I understand what you say about there being multiple options for God, and I personally believe that if there is a God out there I don't see anything in our reality that tells me he is a personal God...or has done anything concrete for us to know him/her/it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiser01, How do you determine logically that God doesn't need a cause? I understand what you say about there being multiple options for God, and I personally believe that if there is a God out there I don't see anything in our reality that tells me he is a personal God...or has done anything concrete for us to know him/her/it.

 

That's a good point. The quantum field seems like a necessity given the mathmatical set of axioms being used. (I say seems because I am neither a mathmatician or a physicist).

 

However, the assertion that god is self caused/self existent is just that - an assertion. It's making up concepts to gloss over objections. That's not the same thing as being logical. Even if such an assertion is consistent and not self-refuting, that doesn't mean such a thing exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiser01, How do you determine logically that God doesn't need a cause? I understand what you say about there being multiple options for God, and I personally believe that if there is a God out there I don't see anything in our reality that tells me he is a personal God...or has done anything concrete for us to know him/her/it.

 

It is followed at the end of the logic chain, the reason i can say something like God would be self existent is the same reason i say something like the quantum field is self existent. To have ABSOLUTE nothingness, produce anything, a universe or anything at all is a contradiction. Nothingness has no being, it has no essence of existence to cause anything, and i think by taking that position you (not you in particular but society as a whole) are setting yourself up for logical fallacy. However, something that is self existent, eternal, and all encompassing sets up a standard for all of existence and since it is that standard, it can create effects without being caused itself. The self existent standard has the essence of existence to create a universe and have no cause because it is the absolute standard for cause and effect.

 

If what ever caused the universe, is not self existent, if it too is an effect then it becomes a contradiction. I know i must sound like a raving theist here but im just trying to be honest about what an all present and eternal God would be.

 

When it comes to a personal God, i think this is a problem because of balance. Why does a chain of cause and effect happen today? It happens because of the original unbalance caused by the big bang. Something that is self existent must be perfectly balanced, because there was no original effect to unbalance it. YHWH can apparently choose to create our universe if he wanted too, this is a problem because it means God is unbalanced and able to make choices. If he can make choices he isn't balanced and would need a first effect to unbalance him and you know what kinda problems for God that implies. The quantum field is perfectly balanced, hence the reason no energy was gained or lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you sound like a raving theist...although, they often argue what you are saying. I don't necessarily disagree, but it just seems to tax my brain a bit to think it through clearly. Even after deconverting, I still wrestle with the fact that we humans actually exists and are intelligent enought to even discuss these kinds of things! I see no evidence at all in a personal God, especially the Christian God as described in the Bible. However, the fact that our reality exists with us in it, is very interesting as it seems like the chances of something supernatural like a "god" type of creator might exist. Of course I have no idea what he/she/it "looks" like (I don't necessarily mean just physically looks like). This is all just a guess though...and probably heavily biased due to being brough up in Christianity and living in a world that is full of beliefs about various god/creators. Nobody around today or living withing the last few thousand years was there to witness the universe beginning, so it's all a big guess to me anyway.

 

I guess you are right that something had to be self existant...whether it just be the matter and energy in a the universe, some sort of "god", or the quantum field (not sure what that is). That's the crux of the issue I guess. We all are basically saying something has always had to self exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to say that I wrestle with the fact that we actually exists...as if reality doesn't really exists. That kind of discussion goes nowhere for me. I just meant that it amazes me that here we are existing...intelligent creatures...complex and amazing. That doesn't mean there was some god who created us, but it just gives me alot to question and think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you sound like a raving theist...although, they often argue what you are saying. I don't necessarily disagree, but it just seems to tax my brain a bit to think it through clearly. Even after deconverting, I still wrestle with the fact that we humans actually exists and are intelligent enought to even discuss these kinds of things! I see no evidence at all in a personal God, especially the Christian God as described in the Bible. However, the fact that our reality exists with us in it, is very interesting as it seems like the chances of something supernatural like a "god" type of creator might exist. Of course I have no idea what he/she/it "looks" like (I don't necessarily mean just physically looks like). This is all just a guess though...and probably heavily biased due to being brough up in Christianity and living in a world that is full of beliefs about various god/creators. Nobody around today or living withing the last few thousand years was there to witness the universe beginning, so it's all a big guess to me anyway.

 

I guess you are right that something had to be self existant...whether it just be the matter and energy in a the universe, some sort of "god", or the quantum field (not sure what that is). That's the crux of the issue I guess. We all are basically saying something has always had to self exist.

 

The problem with saying God IS that self existent something is that just because he is a possibility does not make it fact, God has been proven in no way shape or form so we really dont get the right to say God had to create the universe, thats where WLC ticks me off. Its like i could say pigs created the universe and it be the same equvilent as God doing it, because neither has been proven. You must always remember that, possibility does not constitute reality, it must all share the burden of proof. People have committed suicide because they forgot that.

 

The universe is amazing, but the way in which all this formed is even more amazing than that. Though we could not see the big bang we can see the after affects, and the mathematical predictions of what would happen. As for quantum mechanics, it is an extremely complex scientific theory in physics dealing with things like chance, randomness and things happening for no reason at all. And when i mean complex, i mean hell of complex, if you think you understand quantum mechanics fully, you dont understand it at all. String theory was birthed from Quantum mechanics, well partially from quantum mechanics and from an attempt to combine it with relativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the quantum field is where particles constantly zip in and out of existence creating a kind of energy field. In empty space, between planets and and stars, is not empty at all, in fact it is filled with those particles zipping in and anhialating one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with saying God IS that self existent something is that just because he is a possibility does not make it fact, God has been proven in no way shape or form so we really dont get the right to say God had to create the universe, thats where WLC ticks me off. Its like i could say pigs created the universe and it be the same equvilent as God doing it, because neither has been proven.

 

That is a good way of explaining it. However, my fundamentalist friends and family will make the argument that there is nothing at all logical or sensible about claiming pigs created the universe. They will say that since there is a self existent something, there must be purpose in our creation. They claim we must have a purpose. Then their next logical conclusion is that if there is purpose, there must be some sort of communication about what that purpose is in order for us to be able to fullfill this purpose. They then usually say something to effect of how unique the Bible and Christianity are and how they have investigated other religious beleifs and other truth claims...and only the Bible makes sense and is consistent to them. That is where my big problem lies. I see no consistencies in the Bible and only see ancient writings trying to explain the unexplainable for their time. Basically fairy tales.

 

I also don't see any divine purpose for humanity. I mean, we all have various purposes. Whether they be simple or complex, we all define our own meanings of life and purposes. I am all for the possibility of some sort of god like figure, but there sure doesn't seem to be any communication or purpose given to us by this possible creator. I do agree with my fundamentalist friends and family in that most things that are created have a purpose, but I have a hard time arguing the point with them. Do we as humans have to have a created purpose and does there have to be some sort of communication from the creator "person" (if there even is one)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with saying God IS that self existent something is that just because he is a possibility does not make it fact, God has been proven in no way shape or form so we really dont get the right to say God had to create the universe, thats where WLC ticks me off. Its like i could say pigs created the universe and it be the same equvilent as God doing it, because neither has been proven.

 

That is a good way of explaining it. However, my fundamentalist friends and family will make the argument that there is nothing at all logical or sensible about claiming pigs created the universe. They will say that since there is a self existent something, there must be purpose in our creation. They claim we must have a purpose. Then their next logical conclusion is that if there is purpose, there must be some sort of communication about what that purpose is in order for us to be able to fullfill this purpose. They then usually say something to effect of how unique the Bible and Christianity are and how they have investigated other religious beleifs and other truth claims...and only the Bible makes sense and is consistent to them. That is where my big problem lies. I see no consistencies in the Bible and only see ancient writings trying to explain the unexplainable for their time. Basically fairy tales.

 

 

The mistake your family would be making is that they are trying to apply their world view and associations of life to define what is logical at the level of self existence. As in, to them Pigs seem illogical to start the universe, but God does, because they have been more associated with the God concept their entire lives. This understanding of reality is really hard to visualize because our human associations get in our way. When you are dealing with what was before the universe, nothing is defined, there is no such thing as human rationality, there are also no contradictions, but what we view as rational in our daily lives is out the window. Logic exist here too, however what your family proposes is not exactly logic about the start of the universe, its just their associations.

 

Anything is possible as the start of the universe, because nothing defines something cant be the start. Only by proving a particular position can we be sure what created the universe out of the list of infinite prime movers. God has not been proven, and neither have pigs, they're on equal playing fields currently.

 

Just because you have a self existent something dosnt mean you must have a kind of purpose, the point is completely irrelevant. Purpose is what we define it to be, this is the greatest release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.