The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Whether bang, expansion, or begin to exist apply better the point in a theological discussion is that "nothing" has no causal or creative potential and all the evidence suggests we had nothing natural in existence at a point in the past. Trends are all in the certainty direction for needing a cause for the universe the universe does not contain.

Nothing has different meaning though. The way that cosmologist look at nothing is not the same as it's used in day to day living.

However if there was no space/time there is no need for a cause.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Exactly!

It was an expansion...so why wouldn't there be any vibrations?

 

[Thief]

It was an expansion...so why wouldn't there be any vibrations?

Our hearing works on this planet because of the air between us.
In the vacuum of space, that won't work.
(astronauts can touch helmets and hear each other)

But at the 'point' of singularity there is no vibration.

I suppose you could envision the 'bang' as an explosion.
I do.

A shock wave of force. One big....."HEY!"......or "I AM!"

I do add one other aspect to that event.
The spin of it.

A simple explosion would simply expand.
What we see when we look up has a lot of rotation, orbit and spiral.

I envision the singularity in the 'pinch' of God's fingers.
The 'snap'.....sets everything into spin.

I see this as the 'proof' few people care to hear about.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Our hearing works on this planet because of the air between us.
In the vacuum of space, that won't work.
(astronauts can touch helmets and hear each other)

But at the 'point' of singularity there is no vibration.

I suppose you could envision the 'bang' as an explosion.
I do.

A shock wave of force. One big....."HEY!"......or "I AM!"

I do add one other aspect to that event.
The spin of it.

A simple explosion would simply expand.
What we see when we look up has a lot of rotation, orbit and spiral.

I envision the singularity in the 'pinch' of God's fingers.
The 'snap'.....sets everything into spin.

I see this as the 'proof' few people care to hear about.

Vibrations cause more than just sound.

Where was the I am coming from? Inside the singularity or outside?

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion though. It was an expansion that's like a key point to understand, nothing exploded outwards, it was more like a balloon being blown up.

 

[1robin]

Nothing has different meaning though. The way that cosmologist look at nothing is not the same as it's used in day to day living.

However if there was no space/time there is no need for a cause.

Nothing only has one meaning "officially". That is extremely inconvenient for cosmologists who want to keep a nothing that is a something so their past mistaken theories do not have to be discarded. Nothing means non-being. It is literally no-thing "nothing". What some irrepressible cosmologists claim is nothing is something not nothing.

Time has nothing to do with explanations of existence. I like Leibniz form of the argument. Everything has an EXPLENATION (not cause in his argument) of it's existence. It must either have an explanation within it's self or from an external source. The universe (everything natural, including the quantum energy fluctuations that are mistakenly referred to as nothing) doe snot contain an explanation of it's existence within it's self. It's explanation therefor must come from outside nature. The supernatural contains the explanation of the natural because it is the only realm that in outside the natural. You will not get anything that does not have an explanation for it's existence. Even God has an explanation but unlike the universe he contains the explanation of his existence within his own nature. Time is irrelevant in this context and I do not think relevant to existence in any context.

 

[1robin]

It was an expansion...so why wouldn't there be any vibrations?

Everything natural vibrates. Everything consists of things. Only things can expand.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Nothing only has one meaning "officially". That is extremely inconvenient for cosmologists who want to keep a nothing that is a something so their past mistaken theories do not have to be discarded. Nothing means non-being. It is literally no-thing "nothing". What some irrepressible cosmologists claim is nothing is something not nothing.

Time has nothing to do with explanations of existence. I like Leibniz form of the argument. Everything has an EXPLENATION (not cause in his argument) of it's existence. It must either have an explanation within it's self or from an external source. The universe (everything natural, including the quantum energy fluctuations that are mistakenly referred to as nothing) doe snot contain an explanation of it's existence within it's self. It's explanation therefor must come from outside nature. The supernatural contains the explanation of the natural because it is the only realm that in outside the natural. You will not get anything that does not have an explanation for it's existence. Even God has an explanation but unlike the universe he contains the explanation of his existence within his own nature. Time is irrelevant in this context and I do not think relevant to existence in any context.

Space-time not just time. Both are fundamentally important. At a singularity neither exist.

What explanation do you have for God explaining itself without going into the realm of the supernatural?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Everything natural vibrates. Everything consists of things. Only things can expand.

But energy is not a thing

 

[idav]

Nothing only has one meaning "officially". That is extremely inconvenient for cosmologists who want to keep a nothing that is a something so their past mistaken theories do not have to be discarded. Nothing means non-being. It is literally no-thing "nothing". What some irrepressible cosmologists claim is nothing is something not nothing.

Time has nothing to do with explanations of existence. I like Leibniz form of the argument. Everything has an EXPLENATION (not cause in his argument) of it's existence. It must either have an explanation within it's self or from an external source. The universe (everything natural, including the quantum energy fluctuations that are mistakenly referred to as nothing) doe snot contain an explanation of it's existence within it's self. It's explanation therefor must come from outside nature. The supernatural contains the explanation of the natural because it is the only realm that in outside the natural. You will not get anything that does not have an explanation for it's existence. Even God has an explanation but unlike the universe he contains the explanation of his existence within his own nature. Time is irrelevant in this context and I do not think relevant to existence in any context.

I agree that one option is it came about from itself an option you really didn't eliminate except to assert it can't be true and the universe requires an external source. I don't think thats a given. In fact, god ends up with he same issue just pushed back a step prior to big bang. Then again god exists as virtue of itself or external and conveniently you stop the necessity of external source there. That is rather convenient but unnecessary.

If universe needs something external why is it that god would still need to create from nothing. If god creates using himself then may as well call it all at once, god became at the same time as existence, a cause unto itself without having to bring in nothingness.

 

[Thief]

Vibrations cause more than just sound.

Where was the I am coming from? Inside the singularity or outside?

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion though. It was an expansion that's like a key point to understand, nothing exploded outwards, it was more like a balloon being blown up.

Not buying that.
A balloon has a constraining boundary and is not a balloon without that 'skin'.


At the 'point' of singularity....there is a 'bang'....or not.
There was a loud noise...or no sound at all.
At the speed of the alleged 'increase'.....are you suggesting a 'pop'?

I see it as one very quick movement....not a vibration.
(vibrations below 20 per sec are not audible)
Was the 'bang' heard by Anyone in particular?

Does a tree make a sound when it falls....and no one there to hear it?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Not buying that.
A balloon as a constraining boundary and is not a balloon without that 'skin'.


At the 'point' of singularity....there is a 'bang'....or not.
There was a loud noise...or no sound at all.
At the speed of the alleged 'increase'.....are you suggesting a 'pop'?

I see it as one very quick movement....not a vibration.
(vibrations below 20 per sec are not audible)
Was the 'bang' heard by Anyone in particular?

Does a tree make a sound when it falls....and no one there to hear it?

You don't need to buy it, but that's what the theory is stating. A balloons expansion is internal not external. The skin that you see getting larger is only due to what's in it not what's outside.

Does a tree make a sound? By virtue of matter and energy existin yes.

 

[Thief]

You don't need to buy it, but that's what the theory is stating. A balloons expansion is internal not external. The skin that you see getting larger is only due to what's in it not what's outside.

Does a tree make a sound? By virtue of matter and energy existin yes.

The tree question is a classical sorting out.
The instructor will ask it to see which student leans to his experience...
and which ones can 'hear'.

As far as we know, the universe has no constraint.
The speed of the 'expansion' is increasing.

This quality is the one item that separates it from any other 'pop'.

That and the 'genesis' seems other than physical.
Something from Nothing?......sure looks that way.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The tree question is a classical sorting out.
The instructor will ask it to see which student leans to his experience...
and which ones can 'hear'.

As far as we know, the universe has no constraint.
The speed of the 'expansion' is increasing.

This quality is the one item that separates it from any other 'pop'.

That and the 'genesis' seems other than physical.
Something form Nothing?......sure looks that way.

But there was something according to genesis and that was God.

The tree question last I remember was related more to philosophy, connecting to how do you know something exists.

 

[Thief]

But there was something according to genesis and that was God.

We agree.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We agree.

We actually don't but ok

 

[shawn001]

Are you suggesting entropy has acted in the exact opposite manner as the law would suggest?

No

Entropy measures the amount of decay or disorganization in a system as the system moves continually from order to chaos.

"It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount."

Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking

 

[1robin]

No

Entropy measures the amount of decay or disorganization in a system as the system moves continually from order to chaos.

"It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount."

Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking

I did not think so and I agree with all of this. I could have sworn however that you were suggesting that galaxies are more ordered than the initial conditions. Maybe I misread.

Do you believe evolution negates or reverses entropy?

 

[1robin]

But energy is not a thing

Why not? It certainly is not no-thing? Nothing does not arc or kill people. There are only two choices. It must be a thing or no-thing.

 

[1robin]

Space-time not just time. Both are fundamentally important. At a singularity neither exist.

What explanation do you have for God explaining itself without going into the realm of the supernatural?

You lost me here.

I do agree that space time did not exist before the singularity. However this is evidence for my claims so I am confused by your mentioning it.

Are you asking what natural explanation does a supernatural being have? I do not understand the question.

 

[1robin]

I agree that one option is it came about from itself an option you really didn't eliminate except to assert it can't be true and the universe requires an external source. I don't think thats a given. In fact, god ends up with he same issue just pushed back a step prior to big bang. Then again god exists as virtue of itself or external and conveniently you stop the necessity of external source there. That is rather convenient but unnecessary.

I am not qualified to assert truths about existence myself. I get them from philosophers and cosmologists. It has been the dominant opinion of those most qualified to know that nothing will never produce anything. There are mantras that state this that are 3000 years old.

God most certainly does not have the same problem. The two ways this argument is stated are:

1. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
God did not begin to exist. BTW this one has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.

2. That things must have an explanation for their existence within themselves or externally. God requires no external explanation, he contains his own explanation for existence.

In neither case are God and the natural in the same boat.

God as a concept must exist as an aspect of it's own nature. That is among the definitions of God. Does not make him true but does make him in no need of an external cause or explanation. The universe does not contain it's own explanation or cause. I can't list all the reasons why but I can supply the denial (as an impossibility) of the most popular counter claims by one of the most immanent cosmologists on Earth if you wish.

If universe needs something external why is it that god would still need to create from nothing. If god creates using himself then may as well call it all at once, god became at the same time as existence, a cause unto itself without having to bring in nothingness.

God is eternal as a concept and by revelation. There is no reasonable claim to a 15 billion year old God anywhere. The universe is widely believed to be about 15 billion years old. An eternal God did not create the universe when he began to exist because he did not begin to exist. He was described with the exact characteristics modern philosophy says must be true of whatever caused the universe by men who lived 3000 years before they were known. One of those is personal agency, which means the ability to chose to act. The universe is not a necessary creation. It could have not existed. God chose to create it. That means there was a point when God existed but it did not. BTW that would have to be true of any cause of the universe.