How can something come from nothing?

[Jasbir_T_Singh]

The only person I know who seriously attempts to explain something coming from nothing is the theoretical physicist, Lawrence M. Krauss. I haven’t read any of his stuff, but at the outset it sounds like physicists are really grasping at straws.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

 

[ChainBreaker]

It doesn’t undermine metaphysics, I said it does not portray reality, it is a mathematical tool. The problem is modern cosmologists portray it as reality and the gullible swallow that tale hook, line, and sinker.

Linus2nd

I don’t see it as much of a problem. I mean, so what if space is a real object? It seems evident to me that there is space between discrete objects. Otherwise there would be non-existence between discrete objects which is contradictory.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t see it as much of a problem. I mean, so what if space is a real object? It seems evident to me that there is space between discrete objects. Otherwise there would be non-existence between discrete objects which is contradictory.

But how can " nothing " be something? If space is " empty " it is nothing and cannot exist. Therefore there can be no empty space. What we call " space " must contain something. And the likely candidates are photons, radiation, energy, " force , " gravity. Because we cannot " see " these things, we are tempted to say that space is empty.

And then there is the philosophical/theological argument. God always creates something and something is not nothing. So space must be something but it is not simply space, there is something real there however subtle.

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

But how can " nothing " be something? If space is " empty " it is nothing and cannot exist. Therefore there can be no empty space. What we call " space " must contain something.

But you assume that empty space is ‘nothing’ - the point you are trying to prove. If even empty space has properties, then it is not ‘nothing’ by definition.

And the likely candidates are photons, radiation, energy, " force , " gravity. Because we cannot " see " these things, we are tempted to say that space is empty.

We can see photons (which are a form of radiation) indeed they are the only things we see!

And then there is the philosophical/theological argument. God always creates something and something is not nothing. So space must be something but it is not simply space, there is something real there however subtle.

Again, you assume your conclusion, that empty space is ‘nothing’

 

[CatSci]

But how can " nothing " be something? If space is " empty " it is nothing and cannot exist.

Space, itself, is a thing even when it is empty.

Therefore there can be no empty space.

What you are referring to as not being able to exist, is not “empty space”, it is pure nothingness.

Empty space is not pure nothingness.

What we call " space " must contain something. And the likely candidates are photons, radiation, energy, " force , " gravity. Because we cannot " see " these things, we are tempted to say that space is empty.

Empty space is a quantum field with no excitations. Without excitations there is no matter, but there is still the quantum field there, which is a thing.

So space must be something but it is not simply space, there is something real there however subtle.

There can, in fact, exist empty space. It just isn’t pure nothingness.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But you assume that empty space is ‘nothing’ - the point you are trying to prove. If even empty space has properties, then it is not ‘nothing’ by definition.

It is not I who assume this but others. I am arguing that there is no such thing as empty space for the very reason you state - since it must contain some matter, it is not ’ nothing ’ and is therefore something.

We can see photons (which are a form of radiation) indeed they are the only things we see!

The point is that they fill the most " empty " areas of space along with other forms of matter ( i.e. gravity, energy, waves, force fields, etc.)

Again, you assume your conclusion, that empty space is ‘nothing’

Again, it is not I who am making this assertion. I am saying that if it exists it is composed of some form of matter, it cannot be composed of ’ nothing, ’ because ’ nothing ’ cannot, by definition ( as you remarked ) cannot exist. Something and nothing are mutually exclusive. But some cannot understand that.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Space, itself, is a thing even when it is empty.

That is a contradiction in terms. ’ empty ’ is equivalent to ’ nothing ’ and ’ nothing ’ and ’ something ’ are mutually exclusive. ’ empty ’ means the absence of all being, all existence, likewise with ’ nothing. ’ If that is not what you mean by ’ empty ’ then you are arbitrarily redefining the term.

What you are referring to as not being able to exist, is not “empty space”, it is pure nothingness.

I am saying empty space cannot exist because of the reasons I have repeatedly stated.

Empty space is not pure nothingness.

You keep saying that 'empty ’ space exists and I am saying it cannot exist if it is empty.

How can ’ empty’ exist. What scientists mean by empty space or a void, is the absence of all matter. And that cannot exist, there is no such thing.

Linus2nd

Empty space is a quantum field with no excitations. Without excitations there is no matter, but there is still the quantum field there, which is a thing.

There can, in fact, exist empty space. It just isn’t pure nothingness.

 

[CatSci]

That is a contradiction in terms. ’ empty ’ is equivalent to ’ nothing ’ and ’ nothing ’ and ’ something ’ are mutually exclusive. ’ empty ’ means the absence of all being, all existence, likewise with ’ nothing. ’ If that is not what you mean by ’ empty ’ then you are arbitrarily redefining the term.

That’s false. For example, an empty cup is still a thing even though it is empty.

The same goes for space. Space, itself, is a thing so even when it is empty there is still something there.

I am saying empty space cannot exist because of the reasons I have repeatedly stated.

And you are wrong because you are equating empty space with nothingness. But empty space is not nothingness, it is a quantum field that does not have any excitations… that is still something.

You keep saying that 'empty ’ space exists and I am saying it cannot exist if it is empty.

How can ’ empty’ exist

“Empty” is an adjective, it cannot exist without a subject. In this case, the subject is “space” and it can exist in an empty state.

What scientists mean by empty space or a void, is the absence of all matter. And that cannot exist, there is no such thing.

No, that is not what scientists mean by empty space.

Empty space is a quantum field without any excitations. That is still a thing in and of itself.

Matter is an excitation of the quantum field. When there are no excitations, you don’t have matter but you still have the field there. That is empty space and it is not nothing.

Added by edit:

Think about the space in between atoms. There is no matter there. Yet it still exists.

Matter is not required for existence.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Linus, if your entire argument hinges on your assertion that “nothing” is equivalent to “empty,” we aren’t going to get anywhere. Empty space does not equal nothingness. It equals emptiness which is not the same thing. If you want to define empty space as equivalent to nonexistence, you’ll need to convince us that emptiness and nonexistence are the same, which I disagree with. Emptiness is an unfilled container, but the space to contain things is fixed and still there even if unfilled. Whereas nonexistence is not space and as such not a container. It does not exist and does not have properties. An empty thing, by comparison, has the property of capacity to be filled, a fixed spatial limit, and exists at a point in space and time. Nonexistence has none of those properties.

Regardless of whether or not there can truly be completely empty space in our universe, even empty space is still existence as it is a 3-dimensional plane that can have the potentiality to contain matter/waves/energy/forces. Nonexistence does not have the potential to contain things, and it is not space, empty or full.

 

[inocente]

That is a contradiction in terms. ’ empty ’ is equivalent to ’ nothing ’ and ’ nothing ’ and ’ something ’ are mutually exclusive. ’ empty ’ means the absence of all being, all existence, likewise with ’ nothing. ’ If that is not what you mean by ’ empty ’ then you are arbitrarily redefining the term.

I am saying empty space cannot exist because of the reasons I have repeatedly stated.

You keep saying that 'empty ’ space exists and I am saying it cannot exist if it is empty.

How can ’ empty’ exist. What scientists mean by empty space or a void, is the absence of all matter. And that cannot exist, there is no such thing.

If I may.

Space has volume. We measure a space by its length, breadth and height.

Nothingness has no volume. We can’t measure the length, breadth or height of nothing.

They are two different philosophical concepts. You are perhaps the only person in the history of the world who is trying to argue that nothingness has volume and/or space has no volume.

 

[ChainBreaker]

But how can " nothing " be something? If space is " empty " it is nothing and cannot exist. Therefore there can be no empty space. What we call " space " must contain something. And the likely candidates are photons, radiation, energy, " force , " gravity. Because we cannot " see " these things, we are tempted to say that space is empty.

And then there is the philosophical/theological argument. God always creates something and something is not nothing. So space must be something but it is not simply space, there is something real there however subtle.

Linus2nd

Well, when one says that space is empty one is merely saying that an object distinct from space is not present in it. But space in and of itself is not “empty”; space is full of space. Emptiness is a comparative concept. We do not know what space is but it is clearly unreasonable to argue that space does not exist.

 

[ChainBreaker]

What’s really going to bake your noodle is the question “what is space expanding into?”

Space cannot expand into nothing.

The expansion of space supposedly had a beginning from an infinitesimal point.

Therefore space cannot be expanding into space.

So what sense can we make of spatial expansion?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s false. For example, an empty cup is still a thing even though it is empty

You are saying that the volume bounded by the cup is empty if it does not contain coffee, water, etc. But that is incorrect. There still exists within that boundary the ’ stuff ’ of the universe - gravity, photons, energy, radiation, etc. Some of these things are always there even when the cup is filled with coffee, etc. Perhaps they are all there simultaneously with the coffee, etc…

The same goes for space. Space, itself, is a thing so even when it is empty there is still something there.

As I have just shown, the cup is never ’ empty. ’ It is only because it has been drained of the substances we normally fill a cup with that we call it ’ empty. ’ But that common understanding is prejudiced by our cultural perceptions, which are neither scientifically, nor philosophically, nor theologically accurate.

And you are wrong because you are equating empty space with nothingness. But empty space is not nothingness, it is a quantum field that does not have any excitations… that is still something.

If by ’ quantum field ’ you mean some kind of matter, I would agree that it is something. But then it would not be ’ empty ’ space. And therefore it would not be ’ nothing. ’ Therefore, there is no such thing as ’ empty ’ space, a space without content.

“Empty” is an adjective, it cannot exist without a subject. In this case, the subject is “space” and it can exist in an empty state.

Agreed, it is an adjective and it cannot exist without reference to a subject. But in that case, my contention is that it cannot be described as ’ empty. ’ Its subject is precisely the ’ stuff ’ of the universe as I described above.

No, that is not what scientists mean by empty space.

Empty space is a quantum field without any excitations. That is still a thing in and of itself.

Matter is an excitation of the quantum field. When there are no excitations, you don’t have matter but you still have the field there. That is empty space and it is not nothing.

As I said above, if a ’ quantum ’ field ( excited or not ) is real, then it contains the ’ stuff ’ of which the universe is made, which is always some derivative of matter. That is not ’ empty ’ space for it contains at least whatever a field is. And if a field is ’ something, ’ it is a derivative of matter. Therefore it is not ’ nothing ’ and therefore it is not ’ empty. ’

" Matter is an excitation of the quantum field. When there are no excitations, you don’t have matter but you still have the field there. "

That is a contradiction of terms and arbitrary. Something exists only when some kind of matter exists. Apparently you are attributing existence to an ’ unexcited quantum field. ’ In other words you are attributing reality to part of a mathematical equation. That may make sense mathematically, but it does not exist in the real world. It is not a being, it is not a ’ something.’ And it would seem that your definition of matter here is arbitrary as well.

Think about the space in between atoms. There is no matter there. Yet it still exists.

That is where you are wrong. There may be no ’ matter ’ as you have arbitrarily defined it. But there are still ’ forces ’ present and these are derivatives of matter. Therefore there is matter present and that means there is no ’ empty ’ space present. There may be ’ distances ’ between the atoms, even between the ultimate ’ particles ’ comprising the atoms. But these ’ distances ’ are not ’ empty ’ spaces, they contain numerous ’ forces ’ which are derivatives of matter ( or perhaps we should say that ’ matter ’ is a derivative of these ’ forces. ’ )

Matter is not required for existence.

And that is really the crux of the discussion. And that I heartily disagree with. Nothing exists in the universe that is not matter or a derivative matter. If that is what science is saying or what some scientists are saying, then they are wrong.

God created a material world, he did not create a world composed of mathematics or theories. I think some modern cosmologies have corrupted our thinking, our categories of what is real. The only things God created which are not material are the human soul and Angels and these are spiritual beings ( scholastic philosophers would also consider any living thing as having a soul but its precise nature is debated. )

Pax
Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus, if your entire argument hinges on your assertion that “nothing” is equivalent to “empty,” we aren’t going to get anywhere. Empty space does not equal nothingness. It equals emptiness which is not the same thing. If you want to define empty space as equivalent to nonexistence, you’ll need to convince us that emptiness and nonexistence are the same, which I disagree with. Emptiness is an unfilled container, but the space to contain things is fixed and still there even if unfilled. Whereas nonexistence is not space and as such not a container. It does not exist and does not have properties. An empty thing, by comparison, has the property of capacity to be filled, a fixed spatial limit, and exists at a point in space and time. Nonexistence has none of those properties.

Regardless of whether or not there can truly be completely empty space in our universe, even empty space is still existence as it is a 3-dimensional plane that can have the potentiality to contain matter/waves/energy/forces. Nonexistence does not have the potential to contain things, and it is not space, empty or full.

My post # 212 answers these objections.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If I may.

Space has volume. We measure a space by its length, breadth and height.

Nothingness has no volume. We can’t measure the length, breadth or height of nothing.

They are two different philosophical concepts. You are perhaps the only person in the history of the world who is trying to argue that nothingness has volume and/or space has no volume.

See my post # 212.

I am not arguing that ’ nothing ’ has volume. I am arguing that no volume is empty. For example as we drink our cup of coffee, as the coffe is consumed the ’ stuff ’ of the ulniverse ( gravity, radiation, energy, forces, photons, aether, whatever ) enters. Or perhaps some of these coexist with the coffeee before it was consumed. Therefore, in my view, the space left by the consumed coffe is not empty, it is filled by the ‘stuff’ 'of the universe. Therefore, ’ empty ’ space does not exist, because it is impossible for ’ nothingness ’ to exist. And for the same reason there is no such thing as an empty volume or a void.

I hope you realize that this is my view only. You can’t blame it on anyone else - as far as I know .

Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

You are saying that the volume bounded by the cup is empty if it does not contain coffee, water, etc. But that is incorrect. There still exists within that boundary the ’ stuff ’ of the universe - gravity, photons, energy, radiation, etc. Some of these things are always there even when the cup is filled with coffee, etc. Perhaps they are all there simultaneously with the coffee, etc…

As I said, you are equating the word “empty” with pure nothingness.

That is not how the word is used.

As I have just shown, the cup is never ’ empty. ’ It is only because it has been drained of the substances we normally fill a cup with that we call it ’ empty. ’ But that common understanding is prejudiced by our cultural perceptions, which are neither scientifically, nor philosophically, nor theologically accurate.

According to your argument, the word “empty” can never accurately describe anything at all.

We know you’re wrong because people describe things as being empty all the time.

If by ’ quantum field ’ you mean some kind of matter, I would agree that it is something.

Quantum fields are not made of matter. More closely, matter is “made of” the quantum fields. But even that isn’t all that true, its more complicated than that.

You can think of the quantum fields as being like a huge lake that is completely still. When the field gets excited, its like a wave or bump on the surface of that lake. Those “bumps” show up in our experience as matter.

When there are no excitations in the field, there is no matter. The lake is totally still.

But the lake, itself, is still sitting there as a thing in its own right. Too, the quantum fields exists as something even when they are not excited and no matter exists.

Can you at least acknowledge this point instead of outright denying it?

But then it would not be ’ empty ’ space. And therefore it would not be ’ nothing. ’ Therefore, there is no such thing as ’ empty ’ space, a space without content.

When scientists talk about empty space, they are talking about something that actually exists.

Space without matter in it can exist as a thing. That would be referred to as empty space. That reference does not mean “nothingness”.

As I said above, if a ’ quantum ’ field ( excited or not ) is real, then it contains the ’ stuff ’ of which the universe is made, which is always some derivative of matter.

It is not always some derivative of matter. Electromagnetic fields are not matter. Protons are not matter. Both of those are things that can exist in space where there is no matter.

That is not ’ empty ’ space for it contains at least whatever a field is. And if a field is ’ something, ’ it is a derivative of matter.

Again, its closer to the truth to say that the matter is a derivative of the quantum fields, not the other way around.

Therefore it is not ’ nothing ’ and therefore it is not ’ empty. ’

“Empty” does not denote pure nothingness.

" Matter is an excitation of the quantum field. When there are no excitations, you don’t have matter but you still have the field there. "

That is a contradiction of terms and arbitrary.

No, its both pertinent and correct.

Something exists only when some kind of matter exists.

Wrong, electromagnetic fields and protons are two things that can exist in a space that is void of matter.

Further, matter is composed of even smaller particles. There’s hadrons and fermions and leptons and baryon and all kinds of non-matter stuff that exists in our universe.

[deleted]

But there are still ’ forces ’ present and these are derivatives of matter. Therefore there is matter present and that means there is no ’ empty ’ space present.

Sure, but that is not what is meant by empty space.

You are describing nothingness. Empty space is not nothingness.

But these ’ distances ’ are not ’ empty ’ spaces, they contain numerous ’ forces ’ which are derivatives of matter ( or perhaps we should say that ’ matter ’ is a derivative of these ’ forces. ’ )

Now all you have to do is realize that the word “empty” as used to describe space does not mean nothingness.

 

[CatSci]

What’s really going to bake your noodle is the question “what is space expanding into?”

Space cannot expand into nothing.

The expansion of space supposedly had a beginning from an infinitesimal point.

Therefore space cannot be expanding into space.

So what sense can we make of spatial expansion?

The Universe is all of spacetime and it is a giant 4D manifold that has some particular shape. That shape is getting bigger.

That’s about all we can say about that.

It is nonsensical to say that it is expanding “into” something as that would imply that something exists that is not a part of the Universe, but the Universe contains all of spacetime so that’s impossible.

 

[Nogginer]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an excellent logical argument for the existence of God which also reveals something about God and about the physical universe along the way. It was originally developed by Muslim philosophers (don’t freak out, they’re Theists too) and later added to by Protestant Apologist William Lane Craig. It only proves Theism (God, of a sort, exists), not Christianity specifically, but it is a very solid proof. Roughly, it looks like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The physical world, including time itself, began to exist
3. Therefore, the physical world had a cause. (Presumably God. More on that later.)

Now this argument is clearly logically valid (the conclusion flows from the premises), so the only way an atheist can refute it is by attacking the premises. The first premise is generally accepted. After all, it is true for every single case which has been tested. Everything that we know of that began to exist has a cause for coming into existence (not including the universe itself, since that is the thing to be proved). Chairs come into existence because of carpenters, storms come into existence because of weather fronts, etc. The first premise is just as certain as any scientific fact, or perhaps more so.

Someone could really only refute the second premise one way: to say that the physical world, and time itself, have always existed. If time has always existed, it means that the past is infinite. This, however, cannot be true. It is logically impossible. To explain why, let’s look at Aristotle’s two definitions of something that is infinite:

Potential Infinite: A potential infinite is something that is not, at the present moment, infinite. It is something that is becoming infinite by a repeated process (such as adding one to a number). If the process were to continue indefinitely, in theory the thing would become infinite. This is what is used in mathematics. (such as a line or pair of coordinate axes extending indefinitely, or a number being divided an infinite number of times to create an infinite number of decimal places). If an atheist were to say that time is a potential infinite, then he would have to admit that the past is finite since everything that is a potential infinite must start as something finite.

Actual Infinite: An actual infinite is a thing that is infinite now. Described as “a complete set of an infinite number of things”. The past cannot be an actual infinite since an actual infinite cannot be “traversed”. If one sets out to cross an infinite distance, he will never arrive at the destination. We have come from the past to the present, which means that the past has been traversed, which means the past must be finite, which means that time must have had a beginning.

This means that the physical world must have had a first cause, but what does this argument prove about the First Cause? It proves that He must be non-physical, outside of time, eternal, powerful, creative, and personal (i.e. He is a person, someone with a will, not a mechanical, cause-and-effect force). The First Cause must be personal because if He is the only eternal thing, then what could have caused Him to create the physical world other than Himself? It must have been done by His own choice and for no other reason, which means He has a will, and is thus a person, not just some “entity” or “force”.

Here are some links to some of the research I did on this:
philosophyofreligion.info…ical-argument/
philosophyofreligion.info…e-of-the-past/
sites.middlebury.edu/fyse1229…tual-infinite/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

 

[inocente]

See my post # 212.

I am not arguing that ’ nothing ’ has volume. I am arguing that no volume is empty. For example as we drink our cup of coffee, as the coffe is consumed the ’ stuff ’ of the ulniverse ( gravity, radiation, energy, forces, photons, aether, whatever ) enters. Or perhaps some of these coexist with the coffeee before it was consumed. Therefore, in my view, the space left by the consumed coffe is not empty, it is filled by the ‘stuff’ 'of the universe. Therefore, ’ empty ’ space does not exist, because it is impossible for ’ nothingness ’ to exist. And for the same reason there is no such thing as an empty volume or a void.

I hope you realize that this is my view only. You can’t blame it on anyone else - as far as I know .

Then you’re not doing philosophy, instead you’re making a scientific hypothesis.

I would say you are unlikely to be correct. For instance, imagine a location in intergalactic space where the nearest galaxies are so far away they are mere specks. Now imagine at this position, a tiny cube of space of side one tenth of an inch observed for one tenth of a second. It would seem probable that at least on some occasions the volume will be empty, disproving your hypothesis. If not, simply keep reducing the volume and the observation period by factors of ten. You might argue that it’s not truly empty by claiming there are continuous fields which are always present, but then you’d be making another scientific hypothesis which you’d have to test.

But you can’t prove it one way or the other, and no philosopher will take you word for it, as the philosopher knows that a volume can be empty in principle.

---

I highlighted your “it is impossible for ’ nothingness ’ to exist” as that argument is used by some to dispense with God: nothing can’t exist so there has to be something rather than nothing, QED.

 

[fide]

I have spent days trying to talk someone into believing that nothing is nothing and can therefore do nothing. Doing something would mean it was THERE. It exists! Therefore it cannot be nothing. Nothing is non-existence or non-being. Something that does not exist cannot do anything.

I have always assumed somethings are so basic, they are self-evident. Yet my friend insists that this is an assumption, something someone imagined. HOW…he asks me…do I know that non-existence cannot do anything? My question is, if you believe that NON_EXISTENCE can do things, why on earth do you struggle with the idea that God exists? A least the concept of God has something doing something while it exists?

If this is how atheism reasoning is, then to me it seems like a fundamental denial of reason. ANTHING IS POSSIBLE. That is what it boils down to. After all. What could be so far fetched as having non-existence doing things?

The Lord has given us great wisdom, in divine revelation, that helps us to understand the irrationality of this age - which irrationality seems to be spreading and pervading cultures around the world. St. Paul writes,
Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of** those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.**
19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools
…
24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

The relevance of this passage to our times seems to me to be undeniable. Men today have exchanged reason and intelligence for the pleasures of sinful passions. Cries for homosexual equivalence - and for all sexual expression - are exploding all around the world! And at the same time, this strange irrationality is taking over human minds. This is no coincidence, as Paul explains.

God judges sin, and so given the choice of recognizing God or protecting their sinful lusts, they choose to disbelieve in God; thus they reject the evidence in their own minds. It is shamefully simple. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” and now their “reasoning” is crippled and bent and leads them to absurdity. They make no sense because they have rejected sense and morality, to keep their immorality.

In fact, God and morality are inseparable! To choose immorality is ultimately to reject God - and to reject the self-evident God is to reject all that is self-evident. Hence the absence today of what once was obvious, intuitive and “common sense”!