A Universe from Nothing

[Heuchler]

I noticed in a book store today the book A Universe from Nothing in which the author declares that existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical. For some reason, it’s really bothered me. So, I want to hear the pros, cons, and other opinions on the theory that the Universe came because nothing was unstable and quantum physics allows particles to fluctuate into being.

Thanks,
A. Heuchler

 

[ChibiViolet]

I noticed in a book store today the book A Universe from Nothing in which the author declares that **existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing **and that it’s completely logical. For some reason, it’s really bothered me. So, I want to hear the pros, cons, and other opinions on the theory that the Universe came because nothing was unstable and quantum physics allows particles to fluctuate into being.

Thanks,
A. Heuchler

God always has been and will be so there has never been a time when nothing and no one excisted.

Also, how is it “logical” to think like that–“that existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing?”

 

[ASimon]

I noticed in a book store today the book A Universe from Nothing in which the author declares that existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical. For some reason, it’s really bothered me. So, I want to hear the pros, cons, and other opinions on the theory that the Universe came because nothing was unstable and quantum physics allows particles to fluctuate into being.

Thanks,
A. Heuchler

The book you saw was written by Lawrence Krauss - a noted and very well-regarded theoretical physicist. I haven’t read it yet, but I can certainly predict what one of the “con” arguments will be: that Krauss’s conception of “nothing” in this book isn’t actually “nothing” at all, that it’s really still “something,” and so that Krauss hasn’t gotten underneath the basic question - of how something came from nothing.

Krauss is no dummy - so I think it’s fair to assume that he’s anticipated this objection in advance. Problem is, the answer to it probably requires an understanding of quantum physics. I’ve heard many of Krauss’s lectures, but I can’t honestly parrot the substance of his argument back to you, as I don’t quite understand it myself.

 

[danserr]

I noticed in a book store today the book A Universe from Nothing in which the author declares that existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical. For some reason, it’s really bothered me. So, I want to hear the pros, cons, and other opinions on the theory that the Universe came because nothing was unstable and quantum physics allows particles to fluctuate into being.

Thanks,
A. Heuchler

Like ASimon said, on the Quantum model that Klaus is pushing he is playing with the meaning of the word “nothing.” When he says that the universe came from “Nothing,” he means that it came from the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum, however, is not nothing but a rich sea of fluctuating energy subject to physical laws.

William Lane Craig debated Kraus on the existence of God and this issue came up. You can find the debate here:
youtube.com/watch?v=71ZhJL56bdQ

 

[Heuchler]

Thank you both, Danserr and ASimon. So, it’s not really nothing and you still have some form of physical laws governing this. Does science at this point give any reasons for the laws of physics and why they are the way they are? Just being curious right now.

 

[ASimon]

Thank you both, Danserr and ASimon. So, it’s not really nothing and you still have some form of physical laws governing this. Does science at this point give any reasons for the laws of physics and why they are the way they are? Just being curious right now.

Not really. The slightly glib answer you’re liable to get is that if the laws of physics weren’t the way they are, you wouldn’t be around to ask why.

 

[dingodile]

The book you saw was written by Lawrence Krauss - a noted and very well-regarded theoretical physicist. I haven’t read it yet, but I can certainly predict what one of the “con” arguments will be: that Krauss’s conception of “nothing” in this book isn’t actually “nothing” at all, that it’s really still “something,” and so that Krauss hasn’t gotten underneath the basic question - of how something came from nothing.

Krauss is no dummy - so I think it’s fair to assume that he’s anticipated this objection in advance. Problem is, the answer to it probably requires an understanding of quantum physics. I’ve heard many of Krauss’s lectures, but I can’t honestly parrot the substance of his argument back to you, as I don’t quite understand it myself.

I’ve read it. Indeed, Krauss is no dummy, but he’s no philosopher either. His answer is indeed to redefine “nothing” to mean “quantum vacuum, described by the laws as we know them in quantum theory.” Once “nothing” is redefined in this way, the rest is just a matter of showing that it’s unstable and so a universe is highly likely, if not inevitable.

But William Lane Craig and other critics are correct to point out that Krauss can’t simply help himself to a new definition of “nothing” and pretend to be in the same conversation with others who use the word in its established sense, which is the utter absence of anything at all.

 

[Philthy]

I noticed in a book store today the book A Universe from Nothing in which the author declares that existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical. For some reason, it’s really bothered me. So, I want to hear the pros, cons, and other opinions on the theory that the Universe came because nothing was unstable and quantum physics allows particles to fluctuate into being.

Thanks,
A. Heuchler

I know nothing of the man, his thoughts or the book. What I do know is that the suggestion that “existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical.” is entirely meaningless on one level, and patently false on a second.

Level 1: Of course existence - in the universal, essential and non-particular context - was bound to come from nothingness - they are fundamental mutually exclusive states. If one exists the other is excluded. There is nothing else into which existence bursts forth except into nothingness. If there were such a thing then existence would already be present in that thing. As such, on this level, the statement seems basically to define what nothingness and existence are: two fundamentally exclusive states and the appearance of either precedes the other. To claim, on this level, that it is “logical”, however, is meaningless - it is a definition of terms.

Level 2: In the words used above the suggestion can be inferred that the proximate cause of existence is the state of nothingness. This, is patently false. For if nothingness contains potential, or if it is “unstable”, then it is no longer nothingness, it has both potential and instability which represent a presence of something and exclude the concomitant existence of nothingness.

 

[Pax]

I know nothing of the man, his thoughts or the book. What I do know is that the suggestion that “existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical.” is entirely meaningless on one level, and patently false on a second.

Level 1: Of course existence - in the universal, essential and non-particular context - was bound to come from nothingness - they are fundamental mutually exclusive states. If one exists the other is excluded. There is nothing else into which existence bursts forth except into nothingness. If there were such a thing then existence would already be present in that thing. As such, on this level, the statement seems basically to define what nothingness and existence are: two fundamentally exclusive states and the appearance of either precedes the other. To claim, on this level, that it is “logical”, however, is meaningless - it is a definition of terms.

Level 2: In the words used above the suggestion can be inferred that the proximate cause of existence is the state of nothingness. This, is patently false. For if nothingness contains potential, or if it is “unstable”, then it is no longer nothingness, it has both potential and instability which represent a presence of something and exclude the concomitant existence of nothingness.

Phil…nicely done…nicely done indeed.

God bless.

 

[Adalias]

But William Lane Craig and other critics are correct to point out that Krauss can’t simply help himself to a new definition of “nothing” and pretend to be in the same conversation with others who use the word in its established sense, which is the utter absence of anything at all.
http://www.dubaa.info/dell.gif

 

[Philthy]

Thanks Pax! You taught me most of what I know and post here on CA. It’s nice to know you are still around - rest assured that you, your family and your friends remain in my prayers…

This is my first post with my new sig…do you like it?!

Blessings!

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Level 2: In the words used above the suggestion can be inferred that the proximate cause of existence is the state of nothingness. This, is patently false. For if nothingness contains potential, or if it is “unstable”, then it is no longer nothingness, it has both potential and instability which represent a presence of something and exclude the concomitant existence of nothingness.

Thank you very much Philthy, that really makes sense. Very Thomistic as well. I’ll have to remember that next time.

 

[jmvizanko]

I noticed in a book store today the book A Universe from Nothing in which the author declares that existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical. For some reason, it’s really bothered me. So, I want to hear the pros, cons, and other opinions on the theory that the Universe came because nothing was unstable and quantum physics allows particles to fluctuate into being.

Thanks,
A. Heuchler

Well from my camp the response is pretty classic. If a universe, or “nothing” (that I agree is not nothing in this context) that could spontaneously form a universe cannot exist without a god, then why can a god exist without some reason or necessity for existence? What caused god? And if god is eternal and therefore does not need a cause, what is the reason a god would exist to begin with? Just cuz?

 

[clmowry]

Well from my camp the response is pretty classic. If a universe, or “nothing” (that I agree is not nothing in this context) that could spontaneously form a universe cannot exist without a god, then why can a god exist without some reason or necessity for existence? What caused god? And if god is eternal and therefore does not need a cause, what is the reason a god would exist to begin with? Just cuz?

Infinite regression.

Chuck

 

[jmvizanko]

Infinite regression.

Chuck

So an infinite number of gods exist? I mean, ignoring other arguments, I think either is just as absurd: a causeless universe and a causeless god. Yet 1 of the 2 is the truth, so its absurd no matter what.

 

[clmowry]

So an infinite number of gods exist? I mean, ignoring other arguments, I think either is just as absurd: a causeless universe and a causeless god. Yet 1 of the 2 is the truth, so its absurd no matter what.

God is outside of space and time there is no need for God to have a cause.

The universe, however, is not and must therfore have a cause.

There is either an “Uncasued Cause” or you are left with infinte regression (which is absured).

No?

Chuck

 

[jmvizanko]

God is outside of space and time there is no need for God to have a cause.

The universe, however, is not and must therfore have a cause.

There is either an “Uncasued Cause” or you are left with infinte regression (which is absured).

No?

Chuck

I don’t see how the appeal to being outside of time matters. You can reword why did god exist to why does god exist and its the same problem. And why does god necessarily need cause but the universe does? And why is an infinite regress any more absurd than an eternal god?

 

[clmowry]

I don’t see how the appeal to being outside of time matters. You can reword why did god exist to why does god exist and its the same problem.

And why does god necessarily need cause but the universe does? And why is an infinite regress any more absurd than an eternal god?

It is one of the defining characteristics of God.

If He was created and did not always exists, then He is not God.

If He has always existed and was not created, then He is outside of space and time.

No?

Chuck

 

[ChairmanBill]

Outside of space and time is meaningless and actually means non-existent.

On what basis do you assert that God is outside space and time in the first place?

 

[sw85]

I noticed in a book store today the book A Universe from Nothing in which the author declares that existence was practically bound to come into being from a state of nothing and that it’s completely logical. For some reason, it’s really bothered me. So, I want to hear the pros, cons, and other opinions on the theory that the Universe came because nothing was unstable and quantum physics allows particles to fluctuate into being.

Thanks,
A. Heuchler

Hi Heuchler,

David Albert has a good review of the book in the NYT here, where he argues Krauss’ understanding of “nothing” is not generally what philosophers mean when they say “nothing.” Namely, quantum fields are not nothing.

Well from my camp the response is pretty classic. If a universe, or “nothing” (that I agree is not nothing in this context) that could spontaneously form a universe cannot exist without a god, then why can a god exist without some reason or necessity for existence? What caused god? And if god is eternal and therefore does not need a cause, what is the reason a god would exist to begin with? Just cuz?

You are asking what moves the unmoved mover. This question misses the point – if the unmoved mover were moved, he wouldn’t be unmoved and therefore wouldn’t be the unmoved mover.

It is not the case that everything which exists must have a cause, because that would be obviously absurd. It is the case that everything which begins to exist, or which exhibits movement or change, must have been caused to exist or move or change; and this suggests a chain of causation which necessarily must have its origin in an uncaused, unmoving, unchanging thing, which has the power to cause, move, or change everything (i.e., which is wholly powerful).