Can nothing create something?

[coolduude]

The universe for example. Let’s take the big bang theory (exclude string theory on this one).

I reason that a constant remains constant and can only be changed by an outside force (water will remain water unless a) heat is added and it turns to steam or b) heat is removed and it turns to ice. Otherwise it will remain liquid). Therefore, an external cause is needed for things (irrational things; humans don’t count) to change. So the universe, that infinitely dense point, needed and external cause to begin expanding. That cause was God, correct?

I’m in no way even close to being a philosopher so that is probably pretty wrong

What does everyone think?

 

[jpjd]

Cooldude, are you familiar with Acquinas’ 5 Proofs for God’s Existence? It sounds like you are thinking along those lines:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html
"The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause—which all call God."

 

[Think_About_It]

We don’t know if the universe began as such. The Big Bang Theory may be one of many longer successions of activities in all that exists. We also don’t know why something exists. Our lack of knowledge certainly isn’t an invitation to plug in God. Then we would have to invent reasons why He exists, why only He exists, how we can think of Him as existence itself, etc. It’s a lot less parsimonious than simply saying “I don’t know,” which, of course, we do not.

 

[Thing]

We don’t know if the universe began as such. The Big Bang Theory may be one of many longer successions of activities in all that exists. We also don’t know why something exists. Our lack of knowledge certainly isn’t an invitation to plug in God. Then we would have to invent reasons why He exists, why only He exists, how we can think of Him as existence itself, etc. It’s a lot less parsimonious than simply saying “I don’t know,” which, of course, we do not.

If our universe was the very first of a succession of universes or other things which could exist then we need to know how it [this first universe] began and how it came into existance.

 

[Think_About_It]

We need to know how it [this first universe] began and how it came into existance.

No we don’t. And we also don’t know that it first had a beginning to determine how that beginning came about. These are all things outside of our current knowledge. I’m cautioning against filling the gaps of knowledge with our favorite alternative hypotheses.

 

[stenlis]

The universe for example. Let’s take the big bang theory (exclude string theory on this one).

I reason that a constant remains constant and can only be changed by an outside force (water will remain water unless a) heat is added and it turns to steam or b) heat is removed and it turns to ice. Otherwise it will remain liquid). Therefore, an external cause is needed for things (irrational things; humans don’t count) to change. So the universe, that infinitely dense point, needed and external cause to begin expanding. That cause was God, correct?

I’m in no way even close to being a philosopher so that is probably pretty wrong

What does everyone think?

This kind of thinking ultimately leads to chasing your own tail.

Consider universe in its literal meaning - everything that exists. So, at the Big Bang time, according to your speculation the universe consisted of matter, energy and god. Then god caused the matter and energy expand. What caused god, matter and energy to exist in the first place? If it needed to be something external, then something outside of universe had to exist - something outside of all things that exist. Which is, of course, nonsense.

Why would you say that god caused Big Bang rather than say ‘I don’t know what caused it’?

 

[hatsoff]

The universe for example. Let’s take the big bang theory (exclude string theory on this one).

I reason that a constant remains constant and can only be changed by an outside force (water will remain water unless a) heat is added and it turns to steam or b) heat is removed and it turns to ice. Otherwise it will remain liquid). Therefore, an external cause is needed for things (irrational things; humans don’t count) to change. So the universe, that infinitely dense point, needed and external cause to begin expanding. That cause was God, correct?

I’m in no way even close to being a philosopher so that is probably pretty wrong

What does everyone think?

Language can be very tricky, here. The question in the title of this thread, for instance, is incoherent. Can nothing create something? Well, “nothing” is not a thing which has attributes, such as the ability or lack thereof to create.

On the other hand, it does make sense to talk about some entity not having been created. Take God, for instance. Now, God does not have a creator. It might be tempting, then, to say that nothing created God. But this easily leads to confusion. For how can nothing create anything? So, I recommend avoiding certain such problematic phrases.

 

[hatsoff]

If our universe was the very first of a succession of universes or other things which could exist then we need to know how it [this first universe] began and how it came into existance.

Not exactly. We might very much wish to know how some hypothetical root universe began, but we could still, in principle, know that it did begin without knowing how or why. Indeed, it could be the case that no such explanation would be possible—that its beginning might be a brute fact.

 

[Thing]

Not exactly. We might very much wish to know how some hypothetical root universe began, but we could still, in principle, know that it did begin without knowing how or why. Indeed, it could be the case that no such explanation would be possible—that its beginning might be a brute fact.

That makes it sound like there is a reluctance to think about this.
If our first universe had a beginning then its cause had no beginning, it always was.
If our first universe had no beginning but our first universe as a material thing has a beginning, what was this universe, which can no longer now be called a universe but must be simply termed eternity, before matter, space or time existed.

 

[hatsoff]

That makes it sound like there is a reluctance to think about this.

Not at all. We can acknowledge possible limitations without halting our efforts. In other words, I am not suggesting that we ever stop seeking explanations for observed phenomena; I only point out that we are not guaranteed to find them.

If our first universe had a beginning then its cause had no beginning, it always was.

If all universes—and therefore time itself—have an ultimate beginning, then in what sense can we even talk about that beginning having a “cause”?

If our first universe had no beginning but our first universe as a material thing has a beginning, what was this universe, which can no longer now be called a universe but must be simply termed eternity, before matter, space or time existed.

You’ve lost me, there. Are you distinguishing between material universes and non-material universes? If so, then I must ask, what is a non-material universe? If not, then what are you talking about?

 

[Thing]

Not at all. We can acknowledge possible limitations without halting our efforts. In other words, I am not suggesting that we ever stop seeking explanations for observed phenomena; I only point out that we are not guaranteed to find them.

Are you reluctant to consider a ‘first cause’, or would you need a guarantee of its existance first.

If all universes—and therefore time itself—have an ultimate beginning, then in what sense can we even talk about that beginning having a “cause”?

Please explain.

You’ve lost me, there. Are you distinguishing between material universes and non-material universes? If so, then I must ask, what is a non-material universe? If not, then what are you talking about?

Matter had a beginning. Describe an eternal ‘state’ before and without matter, space or time. Is this our primeval proto-universe-substitute?