How can something come from nothing?

[CatSci]

Although the originator of the theory held that there could be time before the big bang, but all evidence of it was wiped out by the singularity:

“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.” - Msgr. Lemaître, catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Is that still true, or has a possible preexistence of the universe now been disproved?

I don’t think its been disproved.

What has happened is that the theory has become sufficient to explain our observations. Without a reason to consider that possible preexistence, it gets left unaddressed.

That is, what facts do we have that are unexplained by the current theory? Why do we even need to propose a possible preexistence of the universe? What observations are causing us to consider it?

One alternate possibility that I’ve seen is, well let me continue the analogy:

If you had another whole Earth, sitting on top of our Earth, where the other Earth’s southpole tangentially met the north pole of our Earth, then at the Big Bang we would be seeing the Big Crunch of the previous universe. That is, while you were standing at the North Pole of our Earth, you would simultaneously be standing at the South Pole of another Earth.

That’s the Big Crunch and that is a different theory than the Big Bang Theory.

Or, another possibility is that there actually is an “Up” direction at the north pole. That would require additional spatial dimension in our Universe that we are unaware of. And again, that’s not the Big Bang theory either.

I don’t have a problem deviating from the Big Band theory, if that’s what we want to do. That just isn’t what we’ve done yet.

 

[Nixbits]

Very cool. Thanks again CatSci.

I’ve argued with others when they’ve talked about ‘before’ the Big Bang. Using any word that refers to relationships in time when you’re talking about things outside our current universe do not make sense, or at least are totally beyond our knowledge.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think its been disproved.

What has happened is that the theory has become sufficient to explain our observations. Without a reason to consider that possible preexistence, it gets left unaddressed.

That is, what facts do we have that are unexplained by the current theory? Why do we even need to propose a possible preexistence of the universe? What observations are causing us to consider it?

One alternate possibility that I’ve seen is, well let me continue the analogy:

If you had another whole Earth, sitting on top of our Earth, where the other Earth’s southpole tangentially met the north pole of our Earth, then at the Big Bang we would be seeing the Big Crunch of the previous universe. That is, while you were standing at the North Pole of our Earth, you would simultaneously be standing at the South Pole of another Earth.

That’s the Big Crunch and that is a different theory than the Big Bang Theory.

Or, another possibility is that there actually is an “Up” direction at the north pole. That would require additional spatial dimension in our Universe that we are unaware of. And again, that’s not the Big Bang theory either.

I don’t have a problem deviating from the Big Band theory, if that’s what we want to do. That just isn’t what we’ve done yet.

No, I’m fine with that. It’s just that a number of people talk as if the theory proves the universe started from nothing, but Lemaître says no, the theory can’t tell us that scientifically.

I was thinking of how people once thought Aristotle’s cosmology proved a literal reading of scripture but Galileo burst their balloon, and now some think big bang cosmology proves a literal reading, but Lemaître has already deflated them too.

 

[Peebo]

God isn’t a theory…he’s fact

 

[CatSci]

No, I’m fine with that. It’s just that a number of people talk as if the theory proves the universe started from nothing,

What the Big Bang Theory provides us is a picture of the Universe where it does not start from something.

But “not starting from something” is not the same as “starting from nothing”. That’s where people get confused.

The Big Bang Theory does not say that there was nothing, and then there was a universe.

But it does provide a Universe that does not need a cause.

I suppose “not being caused by anything” can be rephrased as “being caused by nothing”, but I don’t like that word “nothing” because it can mean more than just “not something”. And that only adds confusion.

but Lemaître says no, the theory can’t tell us that scientifically.

Yeah, its simply unaddressed.

I was thinking of how people once thought Aristotle’s cosmology proved a literal reading of scripture but Galileo burst their balloon, and now some think big bang cosmology proves a literal reading, but Lemaître has already deflated them too.

Some people are willing to latch on to anything they think supports their faith. Then they get all defensive when you try to tell them that it really doesn’t support their faith. Often, they take it as an attack on their faith, itself. And that just stifles discussion.

 

[Winterwolf00]

This confusion about ‘nothing’ is one of the main reasons why, after intense encounters with the worldview, I have a hard time taking atheism seriously. Some atheists know the difference, but they are few and far between.

Trying to depict atheists as some monolithic hive-mind is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

[ericc]

Yet so far no scientific evidence has shown that cause to be supernatural. Yet believers don’t maintain that their position lacks logic.

so, yes, they are both belief systems. Both which run counter to science as it is currently known.

Because it is outside the scope/capability of science to operate in the supernatural? And just because science can not function/explain in/the supernatural world, it doesn’t mean absence of the supernatural. It just mean science can not detect it (yet).

However it is clear in the material world that something can not arise out of nothing. Yet there is something. Since science can not explain the “something” , the explanation lies outside of science ( but some optimists would say “in the future science will explain it”. And I can also say that in the future, God will let you find him.) . Since science is not all that there is, it is logical that there are other explanations other than science or at least look for answers elsewhere. Why look for things in the dark when there are other lighted areas? Religion is older than science knowledge. It is not a recent invention.

As empirical observations underlie the understanding of science, so are the experiences of those who have encountered the supernatural. Some didn’t have those experiences but they rely on those who have. Similarly in science, many rely on and trust the observations of others. But unlike science, supernatural experiences are not so easily recorded via instruments. Occasionally perhaps in certain miracles (Marian apparitions), but not the norm. There are medical miracles that doctors can not explain in Lourdes and other places and so on. Yes it is a belief system because we have reason to believe that the person experiencing the supernatural is a credible witness (until proven otherwise). The Church typically don’t rush in to proclaim a miracle has happened hastily. She vets the phenomena carefully before proclaiming it. Even then, the Church is rather stingy on such proclamations and doesn’t have a habit of making grand pronouncements. Hence many supernatural experiences remain a private affair and people tend not to publish their experiences in the absence of recordable evidence. But there is evidence that “something” has happened. Whether it is a miraculous cure, or avoidance of harm or a drastic change in behaviour, there are visible signs of that “something”. It is not “smoke”.

The supernatural “something” is a necessary being/thing to stop science explaining the material “something” to infinity.

 

[arte]

I’m new to this thread but I have read several posts but not all of them. Therefore, I may say something here that has already been said. I apologise if I do. The title of the thread is excellent. How can something come from nothing? If this question was ever answered scientifically with a sound theory, It MAY BE the “death knell” of all religions who believe that a God created this universe and with that – us. I believe that many of us have at some time thought about this question and its relevance to our belief in God. However, as it has been said earlier in this thread, people believe in God because they have had some kind of personal revelation. This was certainly the case for me. If so, it may not cause them to doubt God’s existence because science proves something can come from nothing.

My eldest son is an atheist and I have asked him the question: How can something come from nothing? He said there are 2 speculations (not strong enough to be called hypothesises in science).

1. It is the natural state for nothing to become something.
2. Because nothing is outside of the realm of something, it does not obey the laws of physics that exist in the realm of something. “Nothing” does not obey the laws of physics that exist in our universe. Therefore, “nothing” can break all these laws and become “something”.

For me, God is an omnipotent being and exists in all of the realms of “nothing” and “something”. God also “created” all the realms of “nothing”. He is not bound by any of their laws. God can therefore create something from nothing. He created our universe’s singularity from nothing and then started the Big Bang. And, what happened after the Big Bang is what we now call the Big Bang Theory.

 

[ChainBreaker]

My eldest son is an atheist and I have asked him the question: How can something come from nothing? He said there are 2 speculations (not strong enough to be called hypothesises in science).

1. It is the natural state for nothing to become something.
2. Because nothing is outside of the realm of something, it does not obey the laws of physics that exist in the realm of something. “Nothing” does not obey the laws of physics that exist in our universe. Therefore, “nothing” can break all these laws and become “something”.

.

The way i see it, if somebody has to undermine logic itself and add potential and actual powers to that which does not exist in order to be an atheist, **then God exists.
**

 

[BrassAnkles]

Nor does it show that there is.

Science neither proves or disproves the existence of a supreme being, because it is improvable, untestable, and immeasurable it is irrelevant to every field of science because the Scientific Method cannot be applied.
Science doesn’t prove that God is impossible or not there, it just shows a universe where a god is unnecessary.

With all due respect as someone who did research at the graduate level I can tell you the evidence points to a Creator. In fact, if the scientific method were applied to predict the probability that connections could be made between even the closest genetic members we would be surprised to find out no doubt that it is a statistical improbability. Nonetheless, scientific research has been taken over by the godless who feed us non science based on conjecture rather than the scientific method to “postulate” that a Creator cannot exist.

The ominous evidence I am referring to are the issue with mutations in Prokaryotes, the degenerative nature of cell mutation, the impossibility per Evolutions own criteria of various biological systems, and of course the issue with entropy and the Big Bang. These issue are conveniently swept under the rug because honestly many are afraid of the implications due to the wholly caustic anti Christian environment in scientific research in the US and Europe…

 

[arte]

The way i see it, if somebody has to undermine logic itself and add potential and actual powers to that which does not exist in order to be an atheist, **then God exists.
**

From an atheist’s viewpoint, it is us (believers in God) that undermine logic. They believe that whilst science does not have the answer currently on how nothing can be turned into something, they firmly believe that science will eventually have the answer.

My immediate family are either atheists or close to being atheists. One important fact that displays itself is that their love is very limited. Unlike practising Christians, they never go that extra mile to help or have empathy for someone close to them who is suffering. We have become a dysfunctional family because with the exception of me, my family do not have Jesus in their hearts. They wax lyrical about how atheists can show the same love for their fellow man as any Christian can but the truth is a very different matter entirely. They do not have Jesus in their mind saying: “What would I do in this situation?” I see this played out everyday. and I pray everyday that Jesus will find a way into their hearts. The best I can do is to show them by my actions how a Christian behaves.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Your son is wrong. First, it is not at all a natural state for nothing to become something. Nothing comes from nothing. Something does not come from nothing. That’s freaking obvious. Your son is really adhering to a naturalistic philosophy as opposed to a theist philosophy. Your son may not realize that his belief that something can come from nothing is not only nonsense, but also due to his FAITH that science can answer all questions. However, this FAITH is unfounded. Science cannot answer why existence itself exists. Neither math nor physics can explain why Math or physics exists in the first place. IT CAN’T BE DONE. Hence, your son’s naturalistic philosophy is ultimately a dead end when it comes to explaining existence itself.

Your son may be confusing the quantum field with nothingness. Scientists like to redefine nothingness in terms of the quantum field, because frankly they don’t like admitting the fact that science has nothing to say about pure nothingness and hence can’t answer why pure nothingness is not the case. Arrogant scientists redefining well understood terms to suit their own philosophy! What a lie!

While it is true that pure nothingness does not contain physics, that does not at all mean that pure nothingness can become something. Pure nothingness is the absence of all states of existence. Pure nothingness would not be pure nothingness if it were something. Your son is being completely illogical.

Unfortunately, many like your son fall prey to these delusional illogical beliefs. Our society is pressing this nonsense into the heads of our young. However, you can try to point out to your son that his naturalistic philosophy is ultimately illogical and flawed. Indeed, show him my proof!

You are completely correct. I say this as a scientist, but as one who unlike those atheist scientists actually knows the boundaries between philosophy and science, and thus does not constantly confuse them like they do.

A worthwhile read on this subject is Of Nothing by cosmologist Luke Barnes.

 

[classicar]

To neglect the “faith” portion of the human existence is to try to ign ore and negate a vital part of existence itself. How does he know that ANYTHING existed before he was born? He, you and I only have the limited evidence that we can assimilate in a lifetime to tell us what is, or may be true.
We believe that history of the past is true because we have FAITH to believe in what we have not seen or experienced. Faith is the glue that holds scientific experimentation together by hypothesis only BEFORE the facts are known. When your friend sleeps, he goes to sleep in the today, transcends a gulf across NOTHING(his mind is no longer conscious of time, space, life, etc.) into tomorrow without giving it a thought. Some things we just take by faith; a lot of things by faith whether we know it or not. Tomorrow is a good example of what nothing really is. Blessings as you contemplate this heady stuff. Classicar.

 

[Winterwolf00]

From an atheist’s viewpoint, it is us (believers in God) that undermine logic. They believe that whilst science does not have the answer currently on how nothing can be turned into something, they firmly believe that science will eventually have the answer.

My immediate family are either atheists or close to being atheists. One important fact that displays itself is that their love is very limited. Unlike practising Christians, they never go that extra mile to help or have empathy for someone close to them who is suffering. We have become a dysfunctional family because with the exception of me, my family do not have Jesus in their hearts. They wax lyrical about how atheists can show the same love for their fellow man as any Christian can but the truth is a very different matter entirely. They do not have Jesus in their mind saying: “What would I do in this situation?” I see this played out everyday. and I pray everyday that Jesus will find a way into their hearts. The best I can do is to show them by my actions how a Christian behaves.

I highly doubt that that is the reason for your family issues.

 

[inocente]

Your son is wrong. First, it is not at all a natural state for nothing to become something. Nothing comes from nothing. Something does not come from nothing. That’s freaking obvious. Your son is really adhering to a naturalistic philosophy as opposed to a theist philosophy. Your son may not realize that his belief that something can come from nothing is not only nonsense, but also due to his FAITH that science can answer all questions. However, this FAITH is unfounded. Science cannot answer why existence itself exists. Neither math nor physics can explain why Math or physics exists in the first place. IT CAN’T BE DONE. Hence, your son’s naturalistic philosophy is ultimately a dead end when it comes to explaining existence itself.

Your son may be confusing the quantum field with nothingness. Scientists like to redefine nothingness in terms of the quantum field, because frankly they don’t like admitting the fact that science has nothing to say about pure nothingness and hence can’t answer why pure nothingness is not the case. Arrogant scientists redefining well understood terms to suit their own philosophy! What a lie!

While it is true that pure nothingness does not contain physics, that does not at all mean that pure nothingness can become something. Pure nothingness is the absence of all states of existence. Pure nothingness would not be pure nothingness if it were something. Your son is being completely illogical.

Unfortunately, many like your son fall prey to these delusional illogical beliefs. Our society is pressing this nonsense into the heads of our young. However, you can try to point out to your son that his naturalistic philosophy is ultimately illogical and flawed. Indeed, show him my proof!

The son doesn’t sound delusional or irrational, while your use of the adjective “pure” nothingness is redundant and illogical, as if there could be impure or tainted nothingness.

You said it yourself - “nothingness is the absence of all states of existence”. Therefore, by your own definition, nothingness cannot exist. If it existed then it would be something, and then it wouldn’t be nothing. :whacky:

Nothingness can only ever be an abstraction, it can never have any concrete physical existence. It would be illogical to think nothing can exist, that would immediately fail Philosophy 101. Therefore cosmologists have concluded that, as is often the case, naive intuition is a dead end.

Second, there is a simple bit of math. The sum total of all the energy in the universe must be precisely zero, since any non-zero amount would have to come from somewhere else, but there is nowhere else as the universe, by definition, is everything which exists or has ever existed.

This is known by the slightly misleading but catchy phrase “universe from nothing”, meaning universe from zero-sum energy.

(It is hypothesized that the total energy bound up by E=mc[sup]2[/sup] in gravitational mass is equal to all the energy which is expanding space and so works against gravity - so-called dark energy, dark because currently it is only known from the observation of this effect).

You call them “arrogant scientists” but their thinking demonstrates far more rigor than certain other quarters. Some thought Galileo’s philosophy was an arrogant dead end too.

It might be worth looking-up the phrase “god-of-the-gaps”, which was invented by theologians as a critique on trying to use gaps in knowledge to prove the existence of God.

 

[pete_bowes]

Take a piece of string and cut it in half, and half again, then again … and as many times as it takes to realise that there will never be a time when half of something is nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Those who eschew the possibility of proving the existence of a personal God through reasoned arguments and who habitually denigrate such efforts by labeling them as " god in the gap " arguments disqualify themselves as objective judges of such arguments.

Another sophist argument is to raise supposed " scientific " definitions of " nothingness " to show the impossibility of the existence of a God who creates from nothing.

This too is a facetious argument. Thomas Aquinas defines " nothingness " as the absence of any created substance. This would mean the absence of all forms of matter, whether of waves, energy, ultimate particles, or any other thing or " law ", outside of God’s own eternal Being. Modern scientific skeptics have intentionally caused confusion over the meaning of " nothingness " precisely to attempt to " prove " that the universe has always existed in some form. But this simply won’t wash and has no weight except in the minds of those who either hate philosophy or who are ideological skeptics or atheists.

So I once again repeat that the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that God created the existence of the entire universe, both the material and the spiritual, in time, out of nothing. And that the existence of this personal God can be known, without error, simply by unaided reason reflecting on the reality of the universe as it has existed at any time in the history of man. In other words all men, from the very beginning of man, have had sufficient reasoning power to conclude that an eternal and personal creator of all that he sees and experiences does indeed exist.

The Church as further elucidated and commented on the types of arguments which can lead man to a valid knowledge of God’s existence. These run from formal to informal and personal arguments based on man’s observation of himself and the universe in which he lives. Only the ideological skeptic, atheist, or intellectual obstructionist can and do object to these insights. Or perhaps also those who lack the intellectual facility or who have been otherwise obstructed in their reflections.

But so that all men can know with certainty that a personal God does indeed exist and that he has created all, out of nothing, in time, the Church has defined this Revelation dogmatically in these later days. So that now no man has any excuse for non-belief.

Praise be to God, the Eternal Father and Creator of All that Exists.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I use the phrase “pure nothingness” to distinguish it from other definitions of nothingness, such as the quantum field or empty space or some sort of psychological empty mindedness.

Pure nothingness does not have to “exist” to be the case. Think of the absence of “existence” itself as pure nothingness. Claiming pure nothingness must “exist” to be the case is the same as saying something must be its opposite to be real, which is crazy talk man! Pure nothingness is not existence and you cannot impress existence on it.

It is not at all naïve to believe pure nothingness could have been the case. Pure nothingness requires no cause and is much simpler than existence itself. The pertinent question is why is pure nothingness not the case?

A Zero-energy universe doesn’t mean squat as far as disproving God. A zero-energy universe still arises out of a quantum field, and a quantum field is still something. A quantum field is not pure nothingness and hence the zero-energy universe does not at all prove the creation of our universe out of nothingness. This is a perfect example of scientists redefining the accepted meaning of “nothingness” to be something else, i.e. the quantum field.

There is no physics in pure nothingness. Hence, there is no “gap” of scientific knowledge to explain why pure nothingness is not the case. Leave your “God-of-the-gaps” argument at the door.

I didn’t say anything disproves God. Nor did I write banalities about quantum fields. What I actually said is still there for all to see just by scrolling up to post #81. Please read what is written.

What I actually said is that by your own definition - “nothingness is the absence of all states of existence” - nothingness can never exist. By your own definition there can never be a state of existence that is nothing.

This is basic logic. Logic cannot get any more basic than this.

On another thread, I just quoted one of the “arrogant scientists” who says big bang doesn’t prove anything about “pure nothingness” or the existence of God. He’s the man who first thought up the big bang theory. A physicist and astronomer. And a Catholic priest. Monsignor George Lemaître. Who had the ear of his pope (and even warned the pope not to say the theory proved a creation event).

For example:

“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.”

and also:

“As far as I can see, such a theory [his own] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation.”

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

That’s a scientist talking, someone who knows what he’s talking about, who prefers knowledge over ignorance, who doesn’t try to squirrel away God in logical impossibilities or gaps in knowledge.

 

[CatSci]

It is only your insistence that pure nothingness take on the attribute of its opposite, i.e. existence, that makes it appear illogical.

If pure nothingness cannot exist, then how could it be the case?

Pure nothingness is not existence. Pure nothingness is where existence itself is not REAL.

So then, the situation outlined in the movie The Matrix was one of pure nothingness?

I’ll have to disagree.

Pure nothingness is only comprehensible as a concept - and as a concept, it’s not illogical nor impossible.

Right, as a concept its not illogical.

But pure nothingness existing, is what is illogical.

You always forget that verb…

 

[CatSci]

Nevertheless, whether I use the phrase “be the case” or some other phraseology, you get the point.

Maybe I am getting the point… but if I am, then you are not getting my point.

Pure nothingness cannot be the state of the Universe.

The Universe cannot exist in state of pure nothingness.

There has never been pure nothingness and there never will be pure nothingness.

Pure nothingness, as a logical concept, cannot ever be a physical reality.

It is impossible for there to be a physical reality that is pure nothingness.

Does that about cover it?

The logical possibility of pure nothingness is not subject to determination by such semantical games.

Nor do your semantic games allow for pure nothingess to exist.

The Matrix, even though a computer simulated world, was nonetheless still a state of existence. Pure nothingness has nothing to do with such Matrix-type worlds or even silly solipsistic notions.

Then your qualification with the word “REAL” does not work.

Oh, good! You at least accept that pure nothingness as a concept is logical. Now, I’ll have to work on your incorrect notion that something that cannot be its opposite is logically impossible.

That’s just your misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is not that something that cannot be its opposite is logically impossible - and in fact the law of non-contradiction proves the opposite.

The argument is that pure nothingness cannot exist as a state, because that would be something.

Your are an existence bigot. You harbor deep preconceptions concerning the inviolability of existence itself.

Execpt for the fact that I don’t. Perhaps speculating on people motives isn’t something you should do in an online discussion?

I offer you these explanations as a possibility, they hold no weight in particular to me.

Existence itself is in no sense more preferred than the absence of existence.

That is something that you cannot know.

And given our sample size of 1, it actually does seem that existence is the preferred state - you know… considering that we do exist.

Indeed, pure nothingness is simpler than existence itself, and one might draw the conclusion that pure nothingness should be preferred.

Based on what data or information? What would one draw that conclusion from?