Something from nothing argument
Offline It is starting to get annoying hearing the argument that an atheist needs far more faith because they have to believe that something came from nothing.
Aside from this being a complete straw-man argument... isn't that exactly what the xians believe? The most common reasoning I hear from xians is that their god is outside of space and time and created the universe from nothing. Isn't that the same thing that they are accusing us of believing?
Of course then they go on to have faith that Jesus existed, was the son of their god, came back to life after rigor mortis, and flew into the sky to a place they call heaven, etc... (could have probably gone on all day).
How again do we have any faith let alone more faith than the average xian??
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
That "common reasoning" you are hearing from the xians is something relatively new. If we go back a couple of decades, half a century or even two hundred years ago you'd NEVER see xians embracing this line of thought. And, as you asked, isn't that the same thing that they are accusing us of believing ?
To answer your first question, this "newer xian view", comes closer to how science explains the beginning of the universe than any view christ believers have previously held. Mind you, it's still far apart from the current scientific story but it helps waning believers from leaving the Church altogether. Why are xians (even some fundies) latching on to this? Well, in short, science is winning, they know it, their attendance numbers are dwindling and they've no place to run and hide. Over the past decade or so, that's also the xian reasoning behind the really huge push to get ID taught in public schools. They're losing and numbers are down.
I can only answer your second question from my personal point of view. Christians can claim I have faith all they want... it doesn't change the fact that I do not have faith in anything. I have hope and love and knowledge and thought (theory), all in abundance, but no faith whatsoever. I don't think life warrants "believing".
I personally don't know how the universe came to existence which I think is a good thing. The first step to learning is admitting you don't know but I am extremely reluctant to think that it was designed. And I don't think that to believe the universe came from nothing requires as much faith as believing the general theist bullshit, because they have so much to loose if one thing is proved wrong slowly the whole argument collapses for theists but like I said before that wont stop them believing.
Heres something that annoys me about a theist argument that is along the same lines as the original argument:
Theist: In the beginning there was nothing, do you agree?
Atheist: Yes.
Theist: then the world came out of nothing?
Atheist: Yes
Theist: Something would have to make the world out of nothing as nothing cannot create something, and that something is God.
Atheist: You said in the beginning there was nothing, so where did God come from?
Theist: He created himself
Atheist: out of what?
Theist: Nothing
Atheist: Ive spotted the flaw in the argument.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)
I'm not a physicist, but it was my understanding that nothing can't exist. Even in a vaccuum there are still particles. I can't even conceptualize a universe of nothing. How big is the nothing? How much volume of nothing is there? Is there an edge to where nothing ends?
Not to mention, if someone asks you "In the beginning there was nothing, do you agree?" my answer would be "no". In the beginning there was a singularity. What happened before that we don't know.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
aiia: Do you think your god-nonthing came from nothing?
Theist: Of course not, God always existed.
aiia: Then, according to you, "nothing" never existed. But here you are contradicting yourself. I could not possibly agree with that.
You must wake up every morning confused. What is that like? Its no wonder you are afraid.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Much of the above are also straw arguments. There are only a few major possibilities with many many variations on those few.
1) The physical universe has always existed.
2) Something other than the physical universe has always existed.
3) The physical universe started without anything else pre-existing it.
A reasonable person could put probabilities of 50, 10, and 40% respectively without any other info. Given evidence of the Big Bang it would be reasonable to shift probability away from #1 to put more on #2 and #3.
I personally think the universe was a singularity and #2, but it could have been any of them reasonably. Multiple universes can be thought of as a variation of #1 or #3. Expanding and Retracting infinitely could be thought of a variation of #1. In a way, a singularity is meaningless so it doesnt really answer the question. Don't physical laws break down at the singularity?
Quantum Mechanics may in the future shift more weight to #3.
The definition of God is something that has always existed. If you think its a form of the physical universe as in #1 that is a very short hop to a naturalistic pantheism. To maintain a strict atheism, #3 is the best option. I woudn't call adhering to #3 a faith as I woudn't call believing #1 or #2 a faith either.
I don't think theists are meant to be posting on this messageboard but while you're here:
You say that the definition of god is something that has always existed, and by this I assume - despite the bad grammar - that you mean it is god that has always existed and not the definition of god. Now, you seem from your earlier comments to have grasped in part one of the fruits of quantum theory, your "possibility" #3 that nothing existed prior to existence. Yet you do not seem quite to have grasped the significance of that statement, since time itself is included. A better way of putting it might be that "nothing existed prior to there being possible a prior". Hold that thought.
Your "possibilities" #1 and #2 are not borne out by any evidence, and as suppositions seem to be based on nothing very coherent. The known evidence on the contrary suggests a physical singularity at the dawn of existence, and absolutely no evidence exists at all to support #2 (check the definition of universe to see why - and read more about multi-universes and the symbiosis that theory entails before you latch onto that one to try to save your floundering logic).
I will skip over your silly assertion of how a reasonable person would then ascribe probabilities to your suppositions. A reasonable person would do no such thing - they'd ask you where your assertions came from.
Which brings us back to #3 and your definition of god as having always existed. If god, like anything else, is by definition a part of the universe (you yourself have ascribed both temporal and physical laws to the concept so it cannot lie without the universe), then logically it follows thus: - because it "always" existed it is an entity theoretically deductible mathematically or even through observation.
No such deduction has ever been made. No such observation has ever been made.
It doesn't exist.
If you claim to know better, produce the evidence - not assertion based on bad science. If you really want to denounce other arguments as "straw" then it might be advisable to check first that you're not grasping at the same straws to bolster your superstitions and the stunted logic into which they have led you.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Ockam's razor takes any magical claim and reduces it to compost.
When you talk of law of probability knowing that nothing can reach absolute zero, the next question is HOW LIKELY!
When you get in your car and it doesn't start, the stupid person dismantles the entire engine FIRST. The wise person checks the battery.
When we look at the most popular deity claims such as Allah, Yahwey, Jesus, and we look at the magical parlor tricks the believers claim are real, what we could do to determine how likely they are to be true, is to put them right next to a comic book. If Thor does not make lightning, what is the likely hood that Allah knows about plate techtonics or that Jesus survived rigor mortis?
What is more likely?
Life is random?
Or that Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader determine the fate of the species?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Life is not "random", the universe is not "random". This assertion, made by theists and skeptics alike as I've seen, bugs me more than the original something from nothing straw man.
There is a degree of uncertainty in the operations of the universe, but for practical intents and purposes the universe is a pretty orderly place. Stars coalesce, ignite, and flame out in predictable patterns. Species arise, reproduce, and either die off or develop into still newer species.
The concepts of "randomness" and "chance", outside of quantum physics, are usually merely placeholders for the phrase, "I am not personally aware of all the forces at work in producing a given outcome." If God existed, I would expect significantly more randomness in the universe: the physical laws would count for nothing, and we could reasonably expect to see the world around us warping and shifting in bizarre ways. We do not, and most skeptics dismiss such oddities, usually called miracles.
Science is based on the non-randomness of existence at large scales. Without the ability to make predictions, the entire scientific method would break down into chaos and dogma.
Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.
Big bang must have had a great initial energy input, otherwise the universe would have collapsed back... Extremely dense young universe must have had also an extreme gravity.....oooh my head hurts
I had studied esoteric cosmology (which is imho complex enough to catch an attention) and while this doesn't much cover the real beginning of universe, it suggests, that this process first begun on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(cosmology)] higher planes of existence[/url] and the effect of Big bang, was virtually, a great concentration of the potential matter into one point, so it "poured" away into a newly formed material universe. Interesting...
Well, basically it says that Big bang was not the beginning of universe, but a final stage of this beginning. It just wasn't extremely hot and dense point. (heat and density are irrelevant concepts when there is no space, particles, and so on)
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Yeah, I meant to say virtual particles / vacuum energy. Even when there is nothing, there is still energy. Nothing can't be conceptualized as empty vacuum, it would have to have no volume or dimensions or any property whatsoever. I can't conceptualize what nothing would be as any definition I could give it would describe a property of it.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Well, having studied real Cosmology, which is far more complex and meaningful than "esoteric cosmology" (did they ever teach you how to derive the Friedmann equations from the Einsten equations or to derive the universal scale factor?) , I can tell you that very little of your description would match our empirically and experimentally derived model of the Big Bang.
-You use the term "atom" in a loose and non-rigorous (and vacuous) manner. Atoms, in fact, did not form until the universe had sufficiently cooled for electrons to form discrete energy levels around protons. This state was not reached until 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Therefore, any discussion of "atoms" is ultimately irrelevant to the Big Bang. "Room" certainly wasn't the problem since according to the inflation model, during the first 100 decillion Planck times, the universe expanded at approximately 10^50ms^-1, which, if you are interested, is 10^42 times the speed of light. The problem was that for a very long time after the Big Bang, it was far too hot and therefore too unstable for the formation of atoms.
-What was formed in the immediate aftermath of the event were nuclei under the process of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, all derived from the hydrogen nucleus. It was Einstein who first understood that each particle has a particular antiparticle associated. An antiparticle is identical in all respects to the particle to which it corresponds excepting its equal and opposite charge. A particular event concerning particles and antiparticles is annihlation, for example, where an electron/positron pair annihlates to form photons. Suffice it to say for now that the mathematics (described under quantum field theory) are very complex (requires knowledge of Poincare groups to fully grasp). The point is, our generalized understanding of the period of time called the Quark-Lepton era (this period lasted from 10^-32 to 10^-5 seconds after the Big Bang) is where the interaction of elementary particles with their antiparticles resulted in the annihlation of the pairs and release of energy associated.
-Quarks and leptons, being elementary particles, have no known substructure. It is therefore not known precisely what was present in the tiny length of time prior to the QL era, called the inflation era. This length of time is exceptionally small, being only 5.4x10^12 Planck times long, which is utterly miniscule.
The Big Bang, as is described by modern cosmology, can be summarized as thus:
All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from an extremely low entropy prior state. When we examine distant galaxies, we discover they are moving away from us at a calculable rate. Based on the distance they are from us, the wavelength of light from them which we are observing also changes by a calculable amount. The recessional velocity (the speed at which other galaxies are moving away from us), the distance which galaxies are from us, the redshift, or change in wavelength as a result of this recession and distance, and lastly, the acceleration or the rate at which the velocity is increasing, are all linked by several simple equations, and from this we can easily determine the age of the universe, or rather, how long ago the point was that there was no distance between the two receding bodies, the moment of the Big Bang. Thus, via extrapolation we can determine when the BB occured via extrapolation to the point where the distance between galaxies was negligible.
If you can find space in this understanding to work in your vague conceptualizations, let me know, and then generalize the model you put forth as a result as a set of equations that describe the symmetrical breaking that occured during the Planck era and resulted in inflation. Then let me know so I can congratulate you on your Nobel Prize. (You will, of course, in this regard, be competing against virtually every ambitious theoretical physicist who wants to crack either the Unification problem or the Inflation problem. And yes, such an endeavor will probably require several hundred billion dollars worth of particle accelerator, but I suppose this is the price paid for claiming you have this knowledge.) Good luck.
-"Planes of existence" and "pouring" (whatever this means) are not described in the empirical science of Cosmology. Cosmology does not include a concept called a plane. The job of Cosmology is to provide a meaningful and rigorous account of our universe, its origins, etc. under a well-formedset of concepts and mathematical descriptions. Concepts which cannot follow this prerequisite and start making vague statements that cannot be understood in terms of the mathematics describing Cosmology are of no use to cosmologists. The job of a cosmologist is to study the universe based on empirical facts and testing, not to make mindless metaphysical speculation, which is of no use to a physicist. You are merely including concepts that are neither needed to describe our universe or can be rigorously employed to explain particular features of it. As such, Occam's razor comes down with a vengeance.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm not trying to shove esoterics down your neck, I want to find therms in which both world-views can be put together, because I'm sure that in these general schemes is a key to next development. For example, it's said "All is One", and here you go, a concept of holographic universe (the simile with aquarium and cameras is really good) and superstring theory, where, if we dig deep enough in particles, there are just strings.
I'm sure there's a lot of details and even new branches of science included in every such a discovery, but a help of esoteric cosmology is in providing a general directions of development (which may be more different than anyone can imagine), not to explain details. We, human beings exist as complex systems and we usually don't think how we're doing whatever we're doing, we just do it. For 'just doing it' these teachings are useful and can lead to a great personal development. However, that's personal development, what about other persons and their development? For that purpose, esoteric knowledge must connect with another, different area of knowledge you work in. But someone has to do the first step. For all I can imagine, the easiest would be for a scientist to learn some esoteric practice, experience some strange phenomenon on own skin, and then use this new look on the world to expand our knowledge, get a Nobel prize and everyone will be happy. Man, there is a scientist's treasury, we just have to get in there! 20th century's development should be nothing compared to that. We will understand Nikola Tesla somewhere along that way.
It's vague, I know, and I can only diffcultly imagine how vague to you it is. And can you imagine, how unfamiliar is an advanced mathemathics for me? So I'm curious from where in general the first step will come. I think that first will a scientist learn of the others' truth, because this can be, with luck, done in one moment of enlightenment, while to the esotericist would learning of rigorous sciences take as long as to any other laic (decades), it can't be overnight.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I have a never ending gripe with the "big bang" being equated as the entire "universe" or "cosmos".
When we take the words / concepts, of "eternal and "infinite", measurement radically changes meaning. Wouldn't the "small bang" be a more appropriate name?
At this very moment how many bang transitions are now in progress way the heck out there? It it said, the size of our present expanding bang, relates our earth's size to an "atomic speck of dust". I see the bang in the same relative smallness and non-uniqueness in the eternal infinite unmeasurable "super" universe of infinite bangs and time, of the connected "oneness".
I find it funny how the simple word "faith" is often avoided by we atheists, and I have made such rejection statements trying to make a point. Definition: "Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven." Faith can mean "trust," "belief," or "hope". We all have "faith" in this sense. It takes "faith to say I have no "faith" ....
Lost in space and time ! Faith !
Atheism Books.
Looks like Cectic has something to say on this subject.
We do not have a full understanding of the origin of the universe but we already know a fair bit.
Plus cosmologists have several hypotheses for questions that are consistent with observations…e.g. it is possible that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, resulting in no overall origin of time.
Or, that the universe is in a cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle.
Or at long intervals perhaps this universe collides with a mirror universe, creating the universe anew.
All these are educated guesses made by reputable cosmologists and based in observations.
It is all bizarre to us, but our day-to-day commonsense logic is poor preparation for the extreme conditions one finds in cosmology and the counter intuitiveness of quantum mechanics.
Some say it is inconceivable that the universe originated naturally from nothing. Therefore, it must have been created. This is just another “god-of-the-gaps” argument and underlies most creationists thinking, in particular all arguments against abiogenesis and all claims of intelligent design.
And it’s not as though creationists can give an alternative explanation. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It does not rule out any possibility or even any impossibility. It does not address questions of "how" and "why," and it raises questions such as "which God?" and "how did God originate?"
In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
If any other "bang" transitions are taking place "out there", they must be out there in a different universe, because by definition the Big Bang is the inflation of the entire space/time continuum of our universe. But, there is reason to believe that there are parallel universes.
Re “faith”, I think you have given a loose definition of “faith.” As you say, it can have many meanings other than the religious one employed by theists. But, theists give it a specific meaning that doesn’t apply anywhere else, namely belief in an idea or concept for which ultimately there NO evidence at all….i.e. a god. And, this may be why atheists tend to avoid the word.
In more general usage, “faith” has alternative meanings…as in science when one has “faith” that a hypothesis will be substantiated by fact or, one has “faith” in another's ability or honesty. In such usage “faith” can just as easily be replaced by “trust” or “expectation”.
So, when you say: “it takes "faith to say I have no faith", I don’t think it is an accurate statement. It doesn’t take any “faith” to say I have no “faith” in that for which there is no evidence, or expectation of any evidence.
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
Future, I do play with words but I try to so in a meaningful, or funny way. It just took "faith" to say what you did !
Yes faith is most often attached to religion. The definition I used I pulled from the internet.
I think I understand the "street wise basics" of bang concepts, as DG has stated them quit clearly. I don't find anything to disagree with in that, but I am saying why assume our bang is special and unique??? How far can we see / detect of the way out there .... I mean zillions of times past even the most outer reaches of even the void beyond what we do detect. Keep thinking much much further .... keep going !
The bang did not create "time". I would agree the bang made time measurable and useful in our personal place in this universe bang, as would be in other bangs.
Other "dimensions", under our nose as connected to any material universe, is different than by what I mean, other bangs such as ours, way way way "out there". QM dimensions are the yet elusive properties of the connected material / time / space of the grander "eternal infinite Oneness", as all is connected.
Well ???, so I kick these these ideas around, but this not faith for me, just speculation.
But, "lost in space and time", now that's faith ! ..... 
Atheism Books.
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
I think we must assume that the big bang is special and unique because we have no evidence to the contrary. The very definition of the BB is that it IS our entire universe…the entire space/time continuum…and there can be nothing outside of it and that includes time (or gods). I think we must say that the big bang DID create “time” and before the big bang’s inflation there was nothing…not even “time”… just nothing. If there was we could have no way of knowing about it.
I am not sure what you mean by “other bangs” even “way, way, way out there” because no matter how “way out there” one looks it is still the same universe.
Quantum mechanics at this stage seems to make possible the existence of parallel universes but even they would have to be part of OUR universe…just a hitherto unknown part of it…because OUR universe is ALL we can know.
So the “other dimensions”, if they exist can only be parallel universes. But certainly they could well be “under our nose”, as you say, and they would be connected to the material universe because everything IS the material universe. There is no evidence of a non-material universe.
PS: Sorry about the meaningless jumble at the start. Your suggestion about using "edit" doesn't work.
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
Future, I hear ya .... and agree basically , except to say, I find no evidence nor reason to think our bang is "unique" ......
.... the edit button should work ??? OR you could use the copy / paste method and re -post your post , and delete the original post "text" .... leaving an explanation such as "Formatting error" ....
Maybe write in a different kind of text folder option ???
We must teach these PC's to work !
Try different internet browses. "Firefox" is a most popular one, and the one I use. "Internet Explorer" is a bad one, I rarely use .....
Atheism Books.
I would not assume this because axiomnatically something cannot come from nothing, ergo the universe is infinite. The bigbang most likely occured infinite times.
Technically, the universe contains everything and since something cannot come from nothing, the universe existed before the big bang.
As I said, "nothing" never existed; there was always something. Time is a measure of something moving/activity. It could not have had a begining because whatever started time itself had to have had time etc etc ad infinium; in other words an infinite regression. Therefore, time never began.
Hence the reasoning above.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
aiia , thanks ....
Let's throw another monkeywrench into the fray. Conservation of matter & energy.
By this neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. Thus either matter or energy or both had to exist at the "beginning."