How can something start from nothing? [YOU RESPOND]
Offline From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: [General Question] How can something start from nothing
Alex Ouji sent a message using the contact form at
http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.
I really hope i get a response from kelly and or sapient to this one. I
know you have probably been asked this before. First off, although you
claim anyone who does not have faith in a god is by defenition an atheist,
i disagree, because although i do not really totally believe any one
religion, i dont deny the exsistence of god and feel he might exsist. In
fact, I believe there must be a creator, because to believe otherwise is
illogical to me.
Here is why i believe this. I must say that through the amount of logic
we possess as a race, and through the amount of knowledge we have gained
in the recent past, You must figure that either the universe or God is
eternal. because 0x0=0 and something cannot start from nothing. Even the
concept of "nothing" was created at some point because even "nothing"
ceased to exsist at a time.
To me, it just makes more sense to figure that there is an eternal
creator, not necessarily the christian one, who has always and will
exsist.
What are your thoughts on that?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
You're absolutely right, something cannot come from nothing. It's only theists that make the claim that the universe came from nothing, though. They make this claim in what their god did in creating the planet, stars, sun, earth and entire universe. They also make this claim when arguing against evolution, even though evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the universe itself nor does science make the claim that the universe came from nothing. So, the argument you're making is in actual fact an argument against theism. What are your thoughts on that?
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! FOR THE 1 MILLIONTH TIME THE BIG BANG OCCCURED WHEN A SINGULARITY RELEASED ALL IT'S ENERGY QUICKLY AND VIOLENTLY!!!! HENCE THE TERM THE BIG BANG. Please oh PLEASE get some basic science education, please show us where in sciene it specifically states we came from NOTHING, because last time i checked that was in the bible, genesis part about there was nothing and then god brought forth light, There was something, we defined it as a singularity which all the energy was stored/compressed into, which was infinitely dense and extremely high temperature. Now to the atheists defintion, an atheist does not believe in a god, nothing to do with religion, which is a different topic really. One doesn't necessarily believe in or follow a religion but can still believe in a god, however if you don't believe in any god(s) your an atheist.
I wouldn't mind getting a definitive answer on this from both sides. I don't think either side claims there was "something from nothing" and both realize that is a dilemma for both sides. I agree with the singularity notion but technically since physical laws break down there, it is not too meaningful an answer to origin of the universe. So here is the problem. There are 3 possibities with subjective probabilities:
1) The universe was always there by way of a series of expanding/collapsing universes or some multiverse that always existed or the singularity was always there.
2) Something other than the universe(s) was always there. Ie, God. Our universe actually began 15 billion years ago. We are saying, in effect, God took a chunk of himself off to make the universe to avoid having something from nothing. God is defined as a thing that always existed (usually not the universe itself.)
3) The universe actually began 15 billion years ago at the singularity but the singularity wasnt always there. There was no universe(s) before it.
Lets say the atheists initial probabilities are 99.999, 0, epsilon for 1,2, and 3. We're all saying #3 sounds impossible. But the having the universe hover in a "singularity" state for an infinite amount of time (although time doesnt exist yet) seems difficult to grasp. If the universe was static it would be a lot easier to believe it always existed. But since it appears to have an inception, it would be reasonable to move one of the epsilons up. #3 does not seem logical and is more likely to be epsilon. #2 has no evidence but is logical that it is possible. Therefore, I would increase my probability for #2. In other words, its not zero anymore. It could be anywhere between epsilon and epsilon + 49.999% and you could still call yourself an atheist. I have atheists friends that put it as high as 20%. It is a subjective probability since we don't have any other physical evidence for #2 besides the big bang and expanding universe and there will be no new physical evidence coming. There is no one right answer that can be viewed as rational, IMO.
No 1 or 3 is possible, 2 is out of the question, because of your definition, a being, intelligent being, took a chuck of himself to make the universe, this is not logically probable or possible. Now 2 as there as something other than our universe, e.g. another universe or a dimension in which the the singularity when it expanded took over, that is another possiblity, but god is not a logical possiblity at all, so please take your god part out of the equation as it is not a logical possiblity here. Second, time doesn't exist in the same way as we view it now, but time is merely a measurement of change inside our universe, how long was the singularity there? Who knows could have been the equivalent of a minute or a billion years who knows, no one does. However 2 as is .001 percent chance, which puts it at the no possiblity range, ruled out possibility as per your version.
3 is a possiblity as no where does it state that a universe had to exist prior to this universe or that all the enery stored inside that singularity had to come from a previous universe, only that a mass amount of energy was stored inside the singularity, however it got there is a different issue, although many scientists compare it to a gravitational sinuglarity what got it to that state is a different topic.
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You think all atheists "should" have a Probability of 0 for God's existence as I have defined it. That it is more than unprovable but actually impossible. I think #3 has the "something from nothing" problem but I'm not sure how you solved that to make it more likely than #2. That was the whole point of #3 unless I worded it incorrectly. I can't take God out of the equation because God is defined as something that has always existed. If you can argue P(God) from my definition actually equals 0 than that would be a great argument. Otherwise, P(God) > 0. I put P(God) from this argument alone at around 10%. So those were not my probability estimates. I am trying to see what your numbers are.
I agree time is meaningless at the singularity (as in the notion of singularity). But for the sake of argument if the singularity was always there or more accurately outside of time and space until the universe began, it is god. That makes you a Singularian! But seriously, You can't say the singularity is the answer any more than God is the answer to the beginning of the universe. They are both meaningless in a sense. Maybe that is the best scientific explanation for God that we can do. (This reminds me of studying limits in high school and I was arguing that the lim (1/x) as x goes to 0 is undefined because exression 1/0 is undefined but its actually infinity since it never gets there. The same could be thought of with the singularity I guess.)
Tell me again why #2 is illogical. And, tell me how might have the energy got into the singularity for #3? Just FYI, if its expanding/collapsing universes/multiverses, I am calling that #1.
JAB,
See: Special Pleading. By presupposing God, you're saying that either A) He appeared from nowhere, or B) He was just 'always there'. There is no reason to say it's more reasonable to assume your imaginary friend could've around forever than the universe (in whatever state) could've been around forever.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Yes, I agree. It is definitely not more reasonable. But I think it does put a significant positive probability on something having always existed.
There is a difference between the scientific question of "what was" that went into what we see today. And the absurd claim of abracadabra that magical fictional sky daddys are. If you don't believe that Thor made lighting, then it SHOULD be pretty easy to dismiss dead flesh surviving rigor mortis and claims of 72 virgins and multiple armed deities. IT SHOULD BE.
What theists of all labels and even modern day pantheists fail to consider is that the universe is NOT aware. It is not a brain or a God or a computer program. It is a result of prior uncognitive random input.
Is there tons humans don't know? Of course. But there certainly are absurdities that if discarded wont be a loss. It is absurd to claim that Big Foot is real. It is absurd to claim that vampires exist. It is absurd to claim that dead flesh can survive 3 days of death. It is absurd that I will be able to fuck 72 women at my pleasure in a comic book after life.
Just because we like an idea or a claim is far from reality. What we don't know as a species should not involve inserting a fictional nipple where we don't have answers.
"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
Wouldn't you say that it is much more reasonable that a bunch of energy and matter have always existed than a fully sentient being with magical powers?
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Yeah...the smaller the claim, the more reasonable it is. And its good to bash the santa-claus-in-the-sky mentality. Its not very objective and its pretty selfish. God is good because he's done good stuff for me and smote everyone else. Its more of an american christian thing. I dont even know what sentient means on that scale anyway. Like I have said before, we picture God thinking and changing his mind and listening to our prayers but thats just a mental model (sky daddy). Its an ok model. Not great. Maybe we could do better. I don't know how God interacts with humanity much less be able to explain magical powers overriding natural forces. Why would God need a supernatural at all? Its all arranged from the beginning of time anyway. First, I would need a better mental model. I can't fault anyone for not ascribing personal attributes to God.
God = ? , the WTF? , the awe, therefore god exists. (Please stop saying "he" god)
A creator makes no sense to me .... what created the creator?
"Nothing" has never existed. How could it ?
To say "eternal creator" is a contradiction, an oxymoron.
The "Big" bang ? How about the "little insignificant bang" ? How many bangs, out there in all eternity. How many bangs going on now ????
Think really big, really small .... no no, much much more ....
Atheism Books.
Then you disagree with the definition. I'd guess you do so out of some squeamishness or misunderstanding of the burden of proof.
Unless you believe in a god (or gods), you're an atheist. Since there aren't any facts to discuss in regard to gods, the first and last word really is belief itself. Pure belief, unhindered by messy evidence.
Wait, now you do believe in a god? You just said you weren't sure!
That's a complete non sequitur.
You may as well try to read all the world's street signs from your living room, if you're going to work out the origins of the universe in some glib scenario. You're just re-hashing the cosmological argument, that states everything must have a cause; and immediately contradicts itself by posing its god as the sole exception. Swap any arbitrary concept for god, and the result is equally useless.
Read moar.
I cannot tell how the energy got into the singularity at all, I can say that it is more of a possiblity that the energy got into the singularity via a natural process of the enviroment in which the singularity occuppied over the god concept. God is defined per the christian and alomst every single religion and practically all defintions as a intelligent supreme being, a complex being. I can say the singularity is far more possible than god for various reasons, 1 there is far more evidence that singularities exist than god, the evidence points towards a gravitational singularity, the explanation is at least a natural explanation, instead of a supernatural, unprovable concept of some supreme being magically creating the universe using part of itself. As for you not being able to remove god that is your problem, if you need something that has always existed, try energy, no intelligence at all, yet in physics energy cannot be created nor destroyed, as such it always has been there, no god at all required. How does a gravitational singularity form, personally I do not know, there are a few types, the most common thought of in our universe is a curvature singularity, which is believed to be in the middle of a black hole after a star collapses.
Now as for 3, i never said something from nothing, i said it doesn't have to be another universe, which is completely different than nothing. Energy, particles or something the existed prior to the singularity could have collapsed, or gathered together to form the singularity and all the energy for this universe was compacted together in the singularity. A curvature singularity is an example that we can use to show how a singularity could form without the need of a god.
What I find curious is that everything so far to date can be explained via natural processes yet for some reason you need to invoked god for the unknown.
The other thing is: we know the universe exists, we are in it and we observe it. This is fact. We have ideas about how the universe got this way (big bang), before that it gets hazy because it is hard to see past something that massive. We have no evidence, direct or indirect, of the existence of a god or the need for the existence of a god. So it is pure speculation and wishful thinking.
I like where you are going with the mental models and people ascribing personal attributes to god. That is exactly it. With no evidence (I don't count what is written in a story book as evidence, if you include the bible you have to include the scriptures of all religions) all people are doing is making stuff up in a way that makes the most sense to themselves. It has no basis on anything.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
I think todangst said somewhere that it is logically possible for an ex nihilo universe, not coming from a multiverse, but from vacuum fluctuations. I give it a small probability but I wouldnt know how to defend that number.
Eternal creator may be an oxymoron. The eternal God is suppose to be unchanging. To create would be to change by interacting with something that is changing. If something has always existed I don't think it can be morphing. If the universe has always existed does that mean its energy is constant? If there is a multiverse that spawned our universe does that means its energy is constant?
Dose no one else think the consept of god or any other religion was part human evolution to give us a sence of right and wrong and we might be part of somthing our human brain cant comprehend
Community is the glue of religion, not morality. To unite people in common cause against obstacles and threats.
Morals predate the human species. Religion adopted morals after the fact.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
'God' does not 'work' as a source of morality. A supernatural being would be inherently beyond our capability to comprehend, as to its motives or intent.
Any behaviour adjustment inspired by the concept of such a being would not be morality, merely obeying imagined commands out of fear.
Evolution of social species provides a far more explicit explanation for morality, via our empathy for our fellows. A social species will be far more successful if it has drives which foster cooperation and binding of its members into a group whose members care for each other. There is nothing incomprehensible about this, unlike the God theory.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology