So in this post I am going to discuss a fundamental premise to most cosmological arguments even if it is not always explicitly stated. Namely, nothing comes from nothing. When I say nothing in this context, I mean absolutely nothing. So for instance, as a Catholic I believe God created the universe out of nothing. How isn't this a case of something coming from nothing? The reason is that although there was no material cause, there was an efficient cause which was God. So, from something (God) something came.
So when I say that nothing comes from nothing, I mean that a complete absence of being and existence cannot produce something with being or existence but will remain as nothing. And just as a side note because I know some have raised this objection before, nothing can be conceived of in a certain way. However, since we have no experience of nothing or non being, we can or conceive of it in a negative and imperfect way. Nothing is the total lack of being or existence.
Some atheists try to disprove this fundamental premise by saying that quantum physics disproves this when quantum particles appear and disappear. However, from all of the reading I have done, those particles appear and disappear based off the orientation of energy fields.
But let's assume for a second these atheists are right and these particles are coming from absolutely nothing. They aren't coming from any energy or from how the quantum vacuum is orientated or from any kind of substance whatsoever. Furthermore, they can't come from some unknown or little understood physical law of nature since then that would be something. There is no rhyme or reason for why these particles go in and out of existence. When they go out of existence, they turn into nothing, and when they come into existence they come from nothing. What does this mean? Well, for one it means that physical laws are not absolute or even valid and neither are metaphysical laws. If particles can come from nothing, then why not thoughts or universes or so on? A tiny particle coming from nothing is equally as absurd as a inverse coming from nothing. Both things have no cause or explanation. There isn't even a conceivable or possible explanation for either one. Think that's absurd? Well, you might not even exist. How so? Maybe your thoughts and experiences are coming from nothing? Maybe there is no universe or any reality whatsoever. Maybe there is no being or existing thing. "Your" thoughts and experiences are just coming from nothing and not from you. "Your" thoughts don't reside in "you" but in nothing.
In conclusion it is pretty clear that something coming from absolutely nothing is absurd. One last point, since it is common sense that nothing comes from nothing, the burden of proof lies on those who are against this principle
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You cannot describe true nothing. You cannot know true nothing. You can not know or understand the rules of true nothing, there an no rules, it is nothing! As soon as you say "only nothing comes from nothing" you just gave "nothing" a rule. You just gave it a property. You cannot do that. It is true nothing.
We humans want to give definition to and consider nothing, but that is impossible. A "something" can not truly comprehend "nothing" It is worse then trying to understand infinity.
Again I repeat, the correct answer here is: we do not know. No conclusions can be drawn from trying to understand nothing. We cannot study it, we cannot test it, we cannot even comprehend it.
Worse still, we do not even know if there ever was truly nothing." Perhaps there always was "something."
We can certainly "cheat" and create a thought construct, like god, where we just say and think that limitations like nothing do not apply to it to make ourselves feel better, to make up an answer for ourselves that: to some, feels and sounds better than "we do not know."
Why can't we discover true nothing? Why can't we know what it is? Why are there no rules regarding nothing? It seems perfectly logical to saying nothing produces nothing.
"We humans want to give definition to and consider nothing, but that is impossible. A "something" can not truly comprehend "nothing" It is worse then trying to understand infinity."
Why? Prove this assertion. Furthermore, we don't need to have a perfect understanding of it to at least understand something about it, namely that it is the lack of all being.
We currently have no examples of true nothing to demonstrate what can or cannot come from nothing. It is pure imagination and speculation when one attempts to conceive such concepts.
You claim your god created the universe from nothing, so prove it. We don't know how the universe was created, but that doesn't mean we insert a god or gods as the creator(s). As for quantum particles we don't know where they disappear and appear from, maybe they go to another dimension that we can't test for yet.
Gotcha. Nothing comes from nothing. So where did whatever gods or god you believe in come from?
That's for another post.
I disagree
he's a necessary being so he wouldn't need a cause for its existence.
No sir.
How did you come to know this?
Don't go full crackpot.
Anyway, the creation of particles from nothing, violates no known law of physics. Furthermore, it is a mathematical consequence of the postulates of quantum mechanics. Like I said before; this notion of a clockwork universe with everything be determined by causes has been dead for about 100 years.
It's actually even worse. You can actually show from the postulates that there are things even god can't know. For example: god (assuming he is real) can't tell two photons apart that are in the same state. Why? Because presumably if god can tell them apart, he could tell you which one is which. If two objects can be distinguished (even in principle!) they obey a normal statistical distribution. If it is impossible to distinguish them, they obey one of two special distributions. Photons obey one of these special distributions; which means your god (if he is even real) can't tell them apart (or at least can't tell you which one is which).
"Anyway, the creation of particles from nothing, violates no known law of physics. Furthermore, it is a mathematical consequence of the postulates of quantum mechanics."
How about the law of conservation of mass?
Furthermore, how can mathematics predict these particles coming from nothing if they don't actually come from something. The fact that we only have this one supposed example of something coming from nothing strongly implies that it is coming from something. Put another way, if something comes from nothing then it's coming into existence had absolutely no relation or cause from anything else which makes it impossible to predict. So there very fact that you can make somewhat of a prediction means that they don't come from nothing. Also, I realize that it can be very hard to determine or predict causation and so forth.
I don't quite understand your last paragraph. What exactly do you mean by a photon being in the same state?
Particles that exist under the time/energy uncertainty are off-shell. Rephrased in English: their mass/energy is not well defined.
----------------------------------
I already told you it is a consequence of the postulates.
----------------------------------
That is actually right on the money! That is why particle physics is about predicting statistical distributions; not about predicting what will happen in any single instance. Because as you said, that would be impossible (in most situations anyway). Remember when I told you that this idea of yours is outdated by about 100 years?
----------------------
A state is a vector over the complex numbers that encodes the statistical distribution of all of its observables. In English: a state is a description of every possible attribute of a system. The state of a human being would contain an unbelievable amount of attributes and their values (like say a record of the exact color of each hair on your head); but for particles, states are shockingly simple.
Are these the postulates you are talking about:
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html
By prediction I did not mean exact but statistical probability
But anyways, let's say you are right and something can come from nothing. How are you sure you even exist then since you could be something thinking?
Yes, there is more than one way to present them; but that is certainly one of the ways.
------------------------------------------------
Explain to me in detail, how to tell if I exist or am a figment of someone else's imagination. When you can tell me exactly how to determine that; then I'll be interested. If such a distinction is impossible, who cares?
I think therefore I am. That's the classical way of doing that, but this reasoning assumes that nothing comes from nothing. If something can come from nothing, then there is no way of knowing you actually exist, which is absurd of course.
Again, you have hit the nail right on the head. We know that classical logic does NOT describe the world we live in.
Then how do you prove you exist or can you given nothing can produce something?
I can't. Why would I need to anyway? I also can't prove that I ate cornflakes for breakfast. Who cares?
FYI: I can't prove I exist with classical logic either, so your complaint is kind of weird.
Yeah you can, at least to yourself
As soon as it is discovered, it is not nothing anymore. We put thought to it. We named it, we say, "nothing is here" that is something, because it suddenly has a relation to something. This is hard to explain, but I do not think anyone can truly understand true nothing. In all human uses of this thought, it is related by "something." Which instantly makes nothing, not true nothing.
Because we are something. The antithesis of nothing. While we are capable of creative thought, and we can loosely define "nothing" we cannot truly know and understand true nothing. It is a bit like asking a rock "who are you?" It is impossible for that rock to be self aware.
Uh, do not know to put this more simply, if it is true nothing, it has no rules, it is impossible for it to have rules, it is... true nothing. Soon as you apply a rule to it, it is not true nothing. I think I begin to see you struggle with the definition of nothing. We all do. Probably the best way to describe and understand nothing is: we can not understand nothing, we cannot apply rules to it, it has no rules. It is like creating rules for a swimming pool, when there is no swimming pool. We can say there is rules, but those rules do not mean anything. Sure it makes sense, no running around the swimming pool, no glass, no diving head first in the shallow end, but all those rules are meaningless and mean nothing when there is no pool. You cannot say, because of a rule for a non existent swimming pool, we are not allowed to run, ever.
Part of the problem probably lies in the fact for the vast majority of the usage of the word "nothing," we do not mean the idea of true nothing. "I have nothing left," "I have learned nothing." "There is nothing here for me." "Say nothing." All of these and many more are not true nothing, they all really just describe "little."
Why is it impossible to define and consider nothing? Simply put, because we are all something, a part of something. All our understanding, all our definitions are based on something. True nothing does not have that, the closest we can come is "the opposite of something."
I certainly cannot prove this assertion. But I do not need to, it is a negative, and the conclusions I draw are: "I do not know." You may be right, that nothing comes from nothing, but we have no way of knowing that. It is all conjecture, the proper conclusion is "we do not know."
I agree with you there, we do not need perfect, or even good understanding of "nothing" to conclude it is the opposite of "something."
But, with that only basic thought process definition, we can not make conclusions, that support other unfounded conclusions. "Nothing comes from nothing" is two unfounded conclusions based on something we have poor, understanding of, with zero testable proof either way. And then, to take those two unfounded conclusions to try and support another wild and unfounded conclusion (god) is even worse.
So, then if you are consistent, then you cannot be sure that you exist. Maybe your thoughts came from nothing and so on.
You are right we cannot be absolutely sure we exist. But, then, it does not really matter each way does it? That determination helps us in no way. No conclusions can be drawn from it, it is like wondering how much a particular grain of sand on a beach you never been to, weighs down to the microgram, who cares? It gives no useful information.
Maybe were all AI's debating each other.
Dumb Ox
Still waiting for that proof your god is real. Waiting for that proof your god created the universe.
@Dumb Ox
Your post is about god's supposed role in cosmology, but you've attached a picture containing a quote criticizing evolutionists. Evolutionists don't claim that something came from nothing. They argue convincingly that every species is descended from other species. It's theists who claim that every species was created instantly, out of nothing.
Your argument for god, "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing comes from nothing) is simply determinism. Every thing that happens has a prior cause. Where is god's prior cause? And how can god give us free will in a deterministic universe?
Insert atheist for evolutionist.
I am not a determinist and I believe in free will, but I do know everything has an explanation in itself or in another. Free will does not imply something coming from nothing (trust me though, I do know how tricky the explanation for how free will works can be). Btw, I am not arguein for God in this post.
The bold part is just a restatement of determinism; which you rejected earlier in the sentence. So it appears you are opposed to determinism when it suits your purposes (you want to argue for freewill); but wedded to it when it suits your purposes (first cause arguments for god).
Maybe we mean different things by determinism. What I mean by determinism, is that no on has free will and all of our actions are a product of biology, environment, and instincts and so on.
Right on the nail again! Determinism typically means that the future is a function of the present. In English: if you knew everything there was to know about a system (its state and the forces upon it), then you could predict its future (and past) perfectly; that every event has a cause that came earlier in time.
-------------------------------
You are asking all the right questions; but always choosing to side with classical logic/determinism; despite the mountains of evidence against it.
Pages