from nothing to something

[bob]

just think now, the universe had to have come, have started, from something. and the scientific theory, that the big bang, etc, started it, seems a bit untrue to me.

everything had to start from something or someone. now while it is hard to conceive and concede that god was there first, how can you say that something was made out of nothing?

my theory, which i know is incorrect, says that the angels, with some help from god, were responsible for the specific creation of specific things (e.g. planets, stars, etc.)

thoughts?

 

[(Q)]

You make the uniformed assumption that something cannot come from nothing. There is your flaw.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Please show us how something can be made from nothing.

 

[Ceridwen018]

everything had to start from something or someone. now while it is hard to conceive and concede that god was there first, how can you say that something was made out of nothing?

No one is saying the something came from nothing. Rather, many believe that the 'something' has simply just always been.

my theory, which i know is incorrect, says that the angels, with some help from god, were responsible for the specific creation of specific things (e.g. planets, stars, etc.)

Why do you hang onto a theory that you kow to be incorrect? What inspired you to make up this theory in the first place?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please show us how something can be made from nothing.

Quantum mechanics predicted, and susequently confirmed, vacuum fluctuations on the quantum scale.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

just think now, the universe had to have come, have started, from something. and the scientific theory, that the big bang, etc, started it, seems a bit untrue to me.

Tens of thousands of astrophysicists and quantum physicists, hundreds of thousands of hours of advanced research, reams of peer-reviewed journal contributions - all cohearing into a scholarly consensus which "seems a bit untrue" to you! And your credentials would be what, exactly?

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)

 

[(Q)]

Please show us how something can be made from nothing.

When particle operator values do not correspond to scalar field values of the Hamiltonian (total observed energy in a system), we are observing virtual particles borrowing energy and popping in and out of existence.

 

[linwood]

"everything had to start from something or someone. now while it is hard to conceive and concede that god was there first, how can you say that something was made out of nothing?"

If your statement is true then god himself would have to have a creator, and his creator a creator, and so on and so on....

 

[Lightkeeper]

A particle is part of something. A particle is made up of something.

 

[(Q)]

Yes........

 

[Paraprakrti]

You make the uniformed assumption that something cannot come from nothing. There is your flaw.

First of all, "nothing" is a relative term. There is no proof of absolute nothing. For example, one might ask another what is in that cup and the person might say, "nothing". Of course, he/she is referring in relation to there being some form of liquid in the cup. "nothing" being in the cup is not actually a fact. The cup is always filled with something. Just not necessarily a liquid.

Therefore to say that all something ultimately came from nothing is more ridiculous than believing in God.

Secondly, "Nothing", besides being relative to the existence of some specific substance, just means "nothing perceived". This just constitutes a lack of perception. 'If I can't see it, it doesn't exist' is not a plausible argument. Something must always come from something. The question at hand is whether that something is perceivable to our imperfect senses. Sometimes it is and sometimes it apparently isn't.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Please show us how something can be made from nothing.

When particle operator values do not correspond to scalar field values of the Hamiltonian (total observed energy in a system), we are observing virtual particles borrowing energy and popping in and out of existence.

We simply cannot see wherefrom they are seemingly popping in and out of existence. This is not something coming from nothing. This is something coming from another thing we cannot perceive. That is not so unreasonable knowing that we work with imperfect senses.

 

[(Q)]

Therefore to say that all something ultimately came from nothing is more ridiculous than believing in God.

So, the comparison of a cups' contents and quantum fluctuations is somehow relevant and supports your argument? Should high energy physicists be talking to Royal Crown Derby rather than wasting their time with particle accelerators?

'If I can't see it, it doesn't exist' is not a plausible argument.

Contrary to your popular belief, it is a plausible argument. The invisible and the non-existent are one and the same.

Something must always come from something. The question at hand is whether that something is perceivable to our imperfect senses. Sometimes it is and sometimes it apparently isn't.

Actually, its a matter of having an informed opinion, something you lack.

We simply cannot see wherefrom they are seemingly popping in and out of existence.

Sorry, am I to understand you have been involved in those experiments yourself?

This is not something coming from nothing. This is something coming from another thing we cannot perceive. That is not so unreasonable knowing that we work with imperfect senses.

You'll find, if you take the time to learn, that many of the processes that make up our universe are counter-intuitive to our understanding.

An analogy would be to look out your window, most would conclude the Earth is flat.

Our so -called "imperfect senses" are able to measure quantum fluctuations yet have never measured your 'supernatural realm.' Curious.

 

[Zero Faith]

First of all, "nothing" is a relative term. There is no proof of absolute nothing.

So we must assume that something exists because we have not yet proved the fact of non-existence? Proving non-existence is impossible; there is always the possibility of some undiscovered phenomenon impacting measurements. But, as I'll explain later, that has nothing to do with creation from nothing.

For example, one might ask another what is in that cup and the person might say, "nothing". Of course, he/she is referring in relation to there being some form of liquid in the cup. "nothing" being in the cup is not actually a fact. The cup is always filled with something. Just not necessarily a liquid.

You're equivocating a colloquial definition of nothing with a scientific definition of nothing. Yes, colloquially, 'nothing' is a relative term. Scientifically, however, 'nothing' is absolute and refers to an energy vacuum.

Therefore to say that all something ultimately came from nothing is more ridiculous than believing in God.

God is an infinitely powerful being with infinite knowledge and, thus, infinite complexity. Using Occam's razor to prove God is impossibly silly. You should be trying to hide Occam's razor under the rug, not remind us of it.

Secondly, "Nothing", besides being relative to the existence of some specific substance, just means "nothing perceived".

You're technically correct. But as we cannot simply 'assume' that something exists without having perceived it, 'nothing perceived', for all intents and purposes, is the same thing as 'nothing'.

This just constitutes a lack of perception. 'If I can't see it, it doesn't exist' is not a plausible argument.

No, but "I'm not going to believe in it until I can 'see' it" is indeed a valid scientific stance. It isn't even an argument. By 'see', of course, I mean perceive in any meaningful scientific way.

Something must always come from something.

Why? Where is your evidence for this? Earthly precedent? You cannot compare Earthly events to the unparalleled weirdness of the Big Bang. Your entire argument rests on this unproven and very flawed premise.

Interestingly enough, though, you've tackled this argument in the wrong direction. Quantum physics (which, in terms of predictions made, is the most reliable science that humans have ever discovered) mathematically shows that vacuum fluctuations can and do result in the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.

This is where you go wrong -- it is not as if we see these particles, then can't find out where they came from. It's the other way around. Scientists discovered the mathematical evidence for virtual particles that require no 'cause' for genesis, then set up an experiment and managed to find experimental evidence of their existence. Scientists DO understand these things.

The catch is not that they appear out of what we 'perceive' as nothing, but that quantum mechanics has proven that these particles do not need any form of energy whatsoever to create themselves.

 

[Zero Faith]

Contrary to your popular belief, it is a plausible argument. The invisible and the non-existent are one and the same.

Not true; in fact, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that something does not exist because it has not been measured.

Burden of proof is on the positive claim, however. Without proof, science defaults to the negative claim ('there is no God, there is no ether, there is no...' etc). Science does not conclude that there is no God, it merely does not recognize the existence of God until God can be proven.

It's "I do not believe in God" vs. "I believe there is no God". There's a subtle difference, but it's important.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Therefore to say that all something ultimately came from nothing is more ridiculous than believing in God.

So, the comparison of a cups' contents and quantum fluctuations is somehow relevant and supports your argument? Should high energy physicists be talking to Royal Crown Derby rather than wasting their time with particle accelerators?

Besides that the cup analogy was not in response to your quantum fluctuations post, there being "nothing" in the cup is the same as there being "nothing" from which these particles seemingly appear.
I don't know anything about royal crown derby.

'If I can't see it, it doesn't exist' is not a plausible argument.

Contrary to your popular belief, it is a plausible argument. The invisible and the non-existent are one and the same.

If you decide to define what exists as what can be seen. Although, I am sure you haven't seen everything these scientists talk about. I am sure you accept their authority. So what is the value of you saying that to see constitutes existence if you haven't seen first hand all these things?

Something must always come from something. The question at hand is whether that something is perceivable to our imperfect senses. Sometimes it is and sometimes it apparently isn't.

Actually, its a matter of having an informed opinion, something you lack.

You inform me that at some point you cannot see. Therefore I respond that this means your seeing power is limited. Why is this so unreasonable?
Apparently, the idea that anything is outside of your jurisdiction is ridiculous to you. You have to be able to perceive it otherwise it doesn't exist. You have to be God in this sense. This is where you stand. You can deny it all you want.

We simply cannot see wherefrom they are seemingly popping in and out of existence.

Sorry, am I to understand you have been involved in those experiments yourself?

That is the wonderful thing. I do not require to be involved in any such experiments. But, for arguments sake, let us say that something does come from nothing. In this case, "something" is essentially nothing. Therefore stop talking nothing. The end.

This is not something coming from nothing. This is something coming from another thing we cannot perceive. That is not so unreasonable knowing that we work with imperfect senses.

You'll find, if you take the time to learn, that many of the processes that make up our universe are counter-intuitive to our understanding.

No, you do not know, nor does any material scientist know "processes that make up our universe". These processes that are observed are intermediary. Unfortunately, without knowledge of, how shall I say, 'first principle', all intermediary knowledge is resting upon speculation and is therefore imperfect. You only see a minute part of a minute part of a minute part of a link in the chain. You have no idea of the chain itself.

An analogy would be to look out your window, most would conclude the Earth is flat.

Our so -called "imperfect senses" are able to measure quantum fluctuations yet have never measured your 'supernatural realm.' Curious.

No, the question is of wherefrom these particles seemingly appear. If you cannot even perceive that then what to speak of the 'supernatural realm'?

 

[Paraprakrti]

First of all, "nothing" is a relative term. There is no proof of absolute nothing.

So we must assume that something exists because we have not yet proved the fact of non-existence? Proving non-existence is impossible; there is always the possibility of some undiscovered phenomenon impacting measurements. But, as I'll explain later, that has nothing to do with creation from nothing.

Define non-existence. Apparently, (Q) defines non-existence as that which cannot be perceived by the senses. I can see many people defining it this way. But that is people's flaw in thinking that they hold jurisdiction over all things. This propensity is there because it is in God. The difference is, God actually has jurisdiction over all things. If we do also, then how come we are in ignorance? How come we are prone to suffer pain?
That there is always the possibility of some undiscovered phenomenon shows how the endeavor of modern science is essentially inductive.

For example, one might ask another what is in that cup and the person might say, "nothing". Of course, he/she is referring in relation to there being some form of liquid in the cup. "nothing" being in the cup is not actually a fact. The cup is always filled with something. Just not necessarily a liquid.

You're equivocating a colloquial definition of nothing with a scientific definition of nothing. Yes, colloquially, 'nothing' is a relative term. Scientifically, however, 'nothing' is absolute and refers to an energy vacuum.

Let us not forget the conditions: 'An energy vaccum, to what I can perceive'. Therefore upon this premise we have no real conclusion other than our ability to perceive is limited.

Therefore to say that all something ultimately came from nothing is more ridiculous than believing in God.

God is an infinitely powerful being with infinite knowledge and, thus, infinite complexity. Using Occam's razor to prove God is impossibly silly. You should be trying to hide Occam's razor under the rug, not remind us of it.

Occam's razor is not of my concern. I am not afraid of that argument. The point is, as you stated in the beginning of your reply, it is impossible to prove non-existence. Therefore to think that existence comes from non-existence is more ridiculous than believing in God, which constitutes an existence. The specifics of God being infinite this and that are not part of this debate. All I am pointing out is that at least a theist accepts 'something' rather than thinking that it all comes from nothing.

Secondly, "Nothing", besides being relative to the existence of some specific substance, just means "nothing perceived".

You're technically correct. But as we cannot simply 'assume' that something exists without having perceived it, 'nothing perceived', for all intents and purposes, is the same thing as 'nothing'.

No, this is in regard to *what* that something is. If we do not know what it is then we must conclude that we do not know, not that this 'something' does not exist. To say "nothing exists" is contradictory. Something exists whether you can see it or not. This should be the standard of all intelligent thought. Otherwise, where is the question of intelligence? It is then 'nothing' intelligence.

This just constitutes a lack of perception. 'If I can't see it, it doesn't exist' is not a plausible argument.

No, but "I'm not going to believe in it until I can 'see' it" is indeed a valid scientific stance. It isn't even an argument. By 'see', of course, I mean perceive in any meaningful scientific way.

Again you are jumping to specifics of this 'something'. What I may accept that something is is not the debate here. The debate is whether "something exists" or "nothing exists". Obviously, based upon those two options, we should be able to decide which one is correct by disregarding the one that contradicts itself. If something exists and we call it "nothing" then that is just a label relative to either a specific subtance, or to our inability to perceive that something. By default we should all uunderstand that that 'something' exists, whatever it may be.

Something must always come from something.

Why? Where is your evidence for this? Earthly precedent? You cannot compare Earthly events to the unparalleled weirdness of the Big Bang. Your entire argument rests on this unproven and very flawed premise.

It can be "unproven", but the entire premise of science is based upon "something exists". So why should we then contradict ourselves?? My premise is not nearly as flawed as the contradictory statement "nothing exists". You are forced to choose one of the two.

Interestingly enough, though, you've tackled this argument in the wrong direction. Quantum physics (which, in terms of predictions made, is the most reliable science that humans have ever discovered) mathematically shows that vacuum fluctuations can and do result in the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.

Again, this is seen in relevance to the fact that our ability to see is limited. Something must always exist, otherwise there is nothing. Any scientist who believes that there is nothing should therefore stop being a scientist because that premise goes against the whole endeavor of modern science.

This is where you go wrong -- it is not as if we see these particles, then can't find out where they came from. It's the other way around. Scientists discovered the mathematical evidence for virtual particles that require no 'cause' for genesis, then set up an experiment and managed to find experimental evidence of their existence. Scientists DO understand these things.

And their theories are also based upon the fact that they cannot take all factors of the equation into account. Based upon limited perception they mathematically show how such particles seemingly appear out of nothing. Then they make an experiment to show this. But, consider that 'nothing' is being shown regarding wherefrom these particles arise. Therefore should we not also negate the experiment in these regards? Actually, the conclusion of the experiment is that these particles exist, it is not that these particles came from nothing. That can never be a conclusion, as you have stated in the beginning.

The catch is not that they appear out of what we 'perceive' as nothing, but that quantum mechanics has proven that these particles do not need any form of energy whatsoever to create themselves.

At this point we should recognize the limits to which we define "energy". All things come back to the fact that our senses are imperfect. Something exists... or there is nothing at all. Choose one.

 

[Zero Faith]

1) I have conceded that there may (and probably does) exist forces and sources of energy that we, currently, cannot perceive. Science has presented hypotheses that demonstrate the Big Bang could have occurred on its own, without requiring a cause. That's the true crux of the matter. Whether or not it occured in true 'nothingness' is irrelevant.

2) Scientists never claim that something does not exist because they cannot see it. They will, however, say that they will not accept something as true until they see it -- there is a very, very big difference between the two. You will probably not believe that I am a millionaire until I show you somehow. That is not to say that you believe I am not a millionaire. You're saying those are one and the same. They aren't. The former is a natural filter to prevent people from believing everything (invisible pink unicorn, anyone?). The latter is a snap judgment borne of flawed logic.

3) The entire premise of science has nothing to do with whether or not something exists. Science is a means of viewing and assimilating information. Usually, science points towards the existence of something. But in the case of the Universe before the Big Bang, science points towards (not proves) the existence of nothing. There is no contradiction.

You're being obtuse here. You're stating that scientists claim the Big Bang came out of nothing. Then you point out that there can't really be nothing, there must be something we haven't seen. Great. In my opinion, you're probably right. So the Big Bang didn't come out of nothing -- there may have been some imperceptible force at work there. Congratulations.

What have you proven?

Are we to make the leap that this imperceptible energy is God? Or should we come up with some name for this imperceptible energy that may or may not be there? The last time this happened, we were stuck with the ether, which was bad science.

So we're left, instead of 'The Big Bang occured on its own out of nothing', with 'the Big Bang occured on its own in an environment that may or may not have included some imperceptible energy'.

The difference between those two statements is IRRELEVANT. The only salient point is that the Big Bang happened on its own.

The major argument is two sided. One claims that the Big Bang needed God as a cause. Another claims that the Big Bang could have happened on its own. Science supports the latter claim, and that's all there is to it.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Something coming from nothing is not scientific support. It is the lack of support because "support" requires "something".

I have already addressed the argument of *what* this something is. I have already explained that that debate is not part of what I am saying. All I am saying is that something must exist. Whatever that 'something' is is not the question. Period.

There is no point to say that the big bang happened on it's own (assuming the big bang is true). If science does not know what caused the big bang, then they should conclude that... SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG. That is it.

If you want to get into a debate about God being that something, perhaps we can do it elsewhere. My only point is in addressing the idea that something comes from nothing. That is all. End of story. Case closed.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Damn, I was typing a reply and got disconnected....then Zero Faith beat me to the punch! Ah well I'll be brief...

Prapraktri--

Something exists... or there is nothing at all. Choose one.

Those are not the only two options, silly. Things don't have to exist at all points in space....there can be places where there are no "things" existing at that time. We can say "nothing" exists in those places just as we can say "darkness" exists in the absence of light.

At any rate, "from nothing to something" is a bit of a strawman argument. It should say something like "the universe/big bang came from virtual particles which came from a vacuum". We know virtual particles can appear randomly in a vacuum, so this is perfectly reasonable.

Some people seem to think that in order to be valid, a theory has to leave no question unanswered. The truth is, the Big Bang theory does not claim to be the end all, final explanation of everything. We don't know everything there is to know about how our universe came into being--not scientists, not theologians--no one. We know the Big Bang occurred by studying the dopplar effect--that's not really disputable. It remains open as to how, exactly, it occurred, but there are plausible theories.

Let's talk about the idea of something coming from nothing. This seems illogical to us, because we have the misconception that time is an infinite, linear continuum--it isn't. Time is relative, not absolute, and is used to describe the position of a point in space. If there is zero relative motion, zero time has passed. Therefore, any theoretical universe that existed "before" our universe/the Big Bang had a lifespan of exactly 0 seconds. The universe didn't come from nothing, so much as we live in a universe where time has a beginning. Get it? Neither do I, lol