The "Something from nothing argument" is just retarded

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
fishy1's picture
The "Something from nothing argument" is just retarded

....As it totally assumes the universe started out with nothing.

Until I discover further evidence, I have to believe that the building blocks {atoms} we're "always here" and always will be.

We did not get something from nothing. We got something from something. And the something we got was not anything new..... Just the same stuff arranged differently.

Your thoughts ?

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.

RANJEET's picture
well I have studied

well I have studied spontaneous generation theory little bit are you talking about it

David Killens's picture
When the initial "Big Bang"

When the initial "Big Bang" theory was advanced, some scientists were stupid and arrogant enough to claim that the universe popped out of nowhere. This is the claim that apologists have latched onto, and refer to this as fact. But those scientists should have stated "we do not know where the singularity came from". Their knowledge was incomplete.

Recent examinations have revealed that this claim is false, that something preceded the singularity.

When I encounter any apologist making the claim "we came from nothing", I can now state that this statement was made by scientists who jumped the gun and made an assertion without proper evidence. For the same reason that "big bang" is an incorrect description, it was a rapid expansion.

One only needs to Google "before big bang" to discover that newer theories embrace the concept that there was something before the big bang.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The creation of the universe-

The creation of the universe---from nothing---violates no known law/principle of physics.

Does that mean it happened that way? Of course not; but it means that door is still open.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I got Lawrence Krauss' book

I got Lawrence Krauss' book on the subject. Unfortunately, he's a better speaker than he is a writer; so I don't think I got past the first chapter before I returned it. Don't know of any other pop astronomy book that talks about it.

David Killens's picture
Have you tried Google Scholar

Have you tried Google Scholar?

From Big Crunch to Big Bang
Justin Khoury1, Burt A. Ovrut2, Nathan Seiberg3, Paul J. Steinhardt1 and Neil Turok4
1 Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
2 Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6396, USA
3School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540
4DAMTP, CMS, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK

In this paper, we consider the possibility that the singularity is actually a transition
between a contracting big crunch phase and an expanding big bang phase. If true, the
universe may have existed for a semi-infinite time prior to the putative big bang. The
horizon puzzle would be nullified, eliminating one of the prime motivations for inflation.
The analysis opens the door to alternative cosmologies with other solutions to the remaining
cosmological puzzles.
The discussion in this paper focuses on d-dimensional field theory and is not specific
to any particular cosmological model. A crucial role in our analysis is played by a massless
scalar field - a modulus. (The cosmology of such fields has been analyzed by many
authors.2–4) We eschew any use of branes and strings until absolutely necessary. String
theory will become important at the point where the universe bounces from contraction to
expansion.

You don't find this stuff in pop culture books. You find it in academic papers.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Academic papers are not

Academic papers are not designed with the lay person in mind; they are written for a specific audience which I am not a part of. Moreover, academic papers are not designed to teach you anything, they are there to present specific information, with the assumption that the reader already knows everything else.

So thanks but no thanks, I'm familiar enough with academic papers to know when to look them up, and when to pick up a textbook or a popular science book instead.

David Killens's picture
If I can I go to the source

If I can I go to the source rather than allow a middleman to give me their interpretation. And I also research multiple sources.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
If that works for you, that's

If that works for you, that's fine. My approach is to first go to the middleman, learn the big picture, then go into the fray of academic journals. Keep in mind the middlemen are often the very scientists themselves.

LogicFTW's picture
@Fishy1 Original post:

@Fishy1 Original post:

It is a difficult one, either something did come from nothing, or there was infinite "something." Or something else, (lots of religious folks like to go on about a first mover/creator.) But there are many possibilities, probably many we have never considered. Or may not be able to comprehend.

As I have stated before, both infinity and true nothing are very difficult if not impossible for a "something" (that includes us humans,) in a finite life (we die,) to understand or comprehend. Unfortunately, at least with current technology we are unable to observe in anyway what happened before the big bang, we can only theorize. As the big bang is what allowed us to have things too observe, (as well created the possibility of life and intelligent life that we are a part of.)

fishy1's picture
Thank you guys for all the

Thank you guys for all the responses. Interesting stuff.
I guess I could have also said, I just don't need an explanation. I'm good with always was, and always will be. Just constantly rearranging.

So to say that one all powerful, all knowing God, created it all, is going to take some eqally huge evidence.

chimp3's picture
Funny thing is, theists often

Funny thing is, theists often use the argument "You atheists believe this universe (or life) began from nothing!" Then they try to explain how god simp!y "spoke" the universe into existence. Noncongruent at best!

Dave Matson's picture
@Fishy1,

@Fishy1,

The Big Bang theory nicely traces the universe back to the Big Bang event. What happened then, or before if there is a before, cannot be addressed on the basis of current theory. In particular, anyone who says that all of reality began with the Big Bang event is assuming knowledge that is not available. There is some interesting speculation of scientific respectability, but for now nobody really knows.

Sky Pilot's picture
Fishy1,

Fishy1,

If you know anything at all about star formation you should know that they start out as balls of hydrogen. Over time they create new elements. So everything comes from the processing of hydrogen and hydrogen comes from various elemental particles which came from quantum foam which came from strings which came for nothing. The universe did not pop into existence in its current form. It's a process of evolution and it is still going on.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.