Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[Darth Executor]

According to my crap knowledge of physics, there is no such thing as "nothing" scientifically speaking. What we call empty space is still full of fields and infinitesimal quantum particles popping in and out of existence (or is that arising from and going back into the background field? Depends on one's view of quantum mechanics?) Philosophically, I've been told that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a nonsense question because we cannot conceive of true nothingness and thus have no reference point from which to talk about it.

I can conceive of true nothingness. It's what's left behind after I punch someone.

As I understand him, this is basically what Stephen Hawking means when he says that the universe creates itself without a God. He considers nothingness to be impossible and since there there is no such thing as a "beginning of time" therefore the universe must have an eternal past. I think Hawking killed my belief in a traditional Creator with this.

Hmm, maybe I can help you out with this. Let us presuppose an entirely material existence for the sake of simplicity. Infinite time is logically impossible. Tell Stephen Hawking to send me an email if he wants me to clarify it for him.

Let's have a simple graph (not to scale):

....._______________ Year 0 _____________________ year 1 million ___________________________________Year 6 billion (or however long our universe has been around for) ___ Present (year 2014)

How long would it take to get to the present? Since time goes backwards infinitely, the answer is an infinite amount of time. But since you can't count to infinity (try it if you don't believe me) time will never reach the present, or any other concrete point in time. Since we are in 2014 then it's obvious that points in time can be reached and passed. So even if we didn't know about the big bang the only rational option available is that our universe had a beginning.

Because of this, there must be some form of existence in which time does not exist that spawned our temporal existance. How would this existence look? Since there is no chornological sequence of events then there are only two possibilities: events cannot happen in non-time. This option is obviously false because things (including the creation of a temporal bubble like our universe) did happen. The other option is that all things happen simultaneously and eternally. Since there is no need to go from time A to time B between events, you can have a theoretical existence in which things can happen eternally. We know, from within our own limited existance that life, and subsequently, sentience can arrive. We also know that this life gets more and more powerful, with humans at the pinnacle of achievement. Our ability to manipulate the world around us is fantastic and continues to grow. Now imagine the same thing in an existance with no time, where such progress would be both simultaneous and eternal. The production of one (or multiple) eternal, very powerful (if not outright omnipotent) being is, based on what we can see in our own universe, not just possible but very very likely.

[Kelp(p)]

Hmm, maybe I can help you out with this. Let us presuppose an entirely material existence for the sake of simplicity. Infinite time is logically impossible. Tell Stephen Hawking to send me an email if he wants me to clarify it for him.

Let's have a simple graph (not to scale):

....._______________ Year 0 _____________________ year 1 million ___________________________________Year 6 billion (or however long our universe has been around for) ___ Present (year 2014)

How long would it take to get to the present? Since time goes backwards infinitely, the answer is an infinite amount of time. But since you can't count to infinity (try it if you don't believe me) time will never reach the present, or any other concrete point in time. Since we are in 2014 then it's obvious that points in time can be reached and passed. So even if we didn't know about the big bang the only rational option available is that our universe had a beginning.

Apparently, I was actually wrong about Hawking. He doesn't believe in an eternal past. Space and time both began to exist with the Big Bang and it is incoherent to talk about anything else besides the physical universe or "before time." So perhaps in a sense, as you point out, the existence of our spacetime manifold is itself timeless.

[Kelp(p)]

I think the answer is yes. Also, I like William Craig's description of "nothing" (quoted here from his debate with Lawrence Krauss),

But if we negate everything we arrive at a contradiction. Something can only be negated in a particular instance if we already have a concept of it in order to recognize the absence. Craig didn't eat anything for lunch today, but he knows what it is to eat lunch. He didn't negate the concept of food or of a noon meal for all time. If everything is negated then there is also nothing to negate. It's like a vicious circle.

[Adrift]

But if we negate everything we arrive at a contradiction. Something can only be negated in a particular instance if we already have a concept of it in order to recognize the absence. Craig didn't eat anything for lunch today, but he knows what it is to eat lunch. He didn't negate the concept of food or of a noon meal for all time. If everything is negated then there is also nothing to negate. It's like a vicious circle.

Meh. I don't know. I don't have any problem conceiving of "nothing", and Craig's description satisfies me. Really, its enough for me to know that an eternal God can have a conception of "thing" which can be created from "nothing".

[Darth Executor]

Apparently, I was actually wrong about Hawking. He doesn't believe in an eternal past. Space and time both began to exist with the Big Bang and it is incoherent to talk about anything else besides the physical universe or "before time."

It's not incoherent at all. Logic can be used to determinate a number of things about "Universe Zero", as I have done.

So perhaps in a sense, as you point out, the existence of our spacetime manifold is itself timeless.

I'm not saying our spacetime manifold is timeless, I'm saying it was produced by one that is timeless.

[Jedidiah]

I think the answer is yes. Also, I like William Craig's description of "nothing" (quoted here from his debate with Lawrence Krauss),

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/life-the-universe-and-nothing-why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing

The great German philosopher and scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz famously wrote, “The first question which should rightly be asked is: Why is there something rather than nothing?” Before we can even begin to address Leibniz’s question it’s important that we clarify the concepts involved.

The word nothing is a term of universal negation. It means not anything. So, for example, if I say, “I had nothing for lunch today,” what I mean is that I didn’t have anything for lunch today. If you read in an account of World War II that “nothing stopped the German advance from sweeping across Belgium,” what it means is that the German advance was not stopped by anything. If a theologian tells you that “God has created the universe out of nothing,” he means that God’s creation of the universe was not out of anything. The word nothing, to repeat, is simply a term of universal negation, meaning not anything.

There’s a whole series of similar words in English that involve universal negation: nobody means not anybody, none means not one, nowhere means not anywhere, no place means not in any place.

© Copyright Original Source

Sorry, a one liner can clear up what you mean by nothing. I can tell you my understanding of nothing if you like. None of that begins to discuss the topic. Nor have I seen any discussions of nothing that apply to the topic.

Given the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It is pretty clear that nothing as defined by qualities of the existing universe is relevant to the question. Nothing has to be defined as there being no universe and none of the qualities of said universe.

[Adrift]

Sorry, a one liner can clear up what you mean by nothing.

Oh ok. For me the question is almost rhetorical. It gets me thinking of all sorts of things. It speaks to the concept of origins, and the meaning of just about everything. "Where did all of 'this' come from? Why is this here? Why am I here?" Intuitively, "nothing" seems to me like the default. "Nothing" seems logically simpler. But yet, there's something, and that gives me pause. That's why I think the question is legitimate. Its legitimate to me at any rate.

I hope that was a better answer for you.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, I don't think I have a problem with either Creatio ex Deo or an eternal universe or matrix. In asking why the universe exists, I'm mostly looking for some kind of "necessary reason" for there for to be a Creator. But in order to ask the question, nothingness has to be a coherent concept and I guess BP showed me why it isn't (unless we appeal to some kind of "fuzzy logic?")

As I said before the question probably cannot be answered. Scientific evidence has expanded our vision of our universe beyond the small Aristotillian finite universe when this Creation concept became a part of Christian belief. The concept of matrix of our existence based on Quantum Theory makes the existence of a time and place where there was absolutely nothing existed is a difficult concept to fit. Is of course possible, but this possibility represents simply a philosophical and theological assertion.

Actually Biblically there was some sort of preexistence prior to the actual Creation event. There are other philosophical and theological problems. For example the existence of absolute nothingness with God existing eternally is a contradiction to many. I do not consider Creatio Exhnilo is necessarily based on the Bible.

[Kelp(p)]

As I said before the question probably cannot be answered. Scientific evidence has expanded our vision of our universe beyond the small Aristotillian finite universe when this Creation concept became a part of Christian belief. The concept of matrix of our existence based on Quantum Theory makes the existence of a time and place where there was absolutely nothing existed is a difficult concept to fit. Is of course possible, but this possibility represents simply a philosophical and theological assertion.

Actually Biblically there was some sort of preexistence prior to the actual Creation event. There are other philosophical and theological problems. For example the existence of absolute nothingness with God existing eternally is a contradiction to many. I do not consider Creatio Exhnilo is necessarily based on the Bible.

I agree, actually. I've never believed in the existence of actual nothingness. I was just seeking the cogency of theoretical nothingness in order to judge Leibniz' first fundamental question- "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[shunyadragon]

Hmm, maybe I can help you out with this. Let us presuppose an entirely material existence for the sake of simplicity. Infinite time is logically impossible. Tell Stephen Hawking to send me an email if he wants me to clarify it for him.

Hawking does not believe in infinite time. He believes that the relativity of time and energy/matter where every possible universe has a beginning in time. The Quantum Matrix is timeless. .

The concept of an infinite universe is not illogical. Lucretius in first century Rome figured it out very simply

Let's have a simple graph (not to scale):

....._______________ Year 0 _____________________ year 1 million ___________________________________Year 6 billion (or however long our universe has been around for) ___ Present (year 2014)

How long would it take to get to the present? Since time goes backwards infinitely, the answer is an infinite amount of time. But since you can't count to infinity (try it if you don't believe me) time will never reach the present, or any other concrete point in time. Since we are in 2014 then it's obvious that points in time can be reached and passed. So even if we didn't know about the big bang the only rational option available is that our universe had a beginning.

Because of this, there must be some form of existence in which time does not exist that spawned our temporal existance. How would this existence look? Since there is no chornological sequence of events then there are only two possibilities: events cannot happen in non-time. This option is obviously false because things (including the creation of a temporal bubble like our universe) did happen. The other option is that all things happen simultaneously and eternally. Since there is no need to go from time A to time B between events, you can have a theoretical existence in which things can happen eternally. We know, from within our own limited existance that life, and subsequently, sentience can arrive. We also know that this life gets more and more powerful, with humans at the pinnacle of achievement. Our ability to manipulate the world around us is fantastic and continues to grow. Now imagine the same thing in an existance with no time, where such progress would be both simultaneous and eternal. The production of one (or multiple) eternal, very powerful (if not outright omnipotent) being is, based on what we can see in our own universe, not just possible but very very likely.

This logic fails by modern math and the simplicity of infinities in time and space. First time does not have units of time nor space, therefore any limits we put on space and time are meaningless. These are Creations of human conventions.The simplicity of infinity is that there is always something in time and space beyond any concept of time and space we can imagine or calculate.

Again Lucretius got it right in simplicity as the arrow of time and space pierces all finite boundaries of human imagination and convention.

[Leonhard]

Hello Leonhard. The question you answered was actually addressed to Seer. Did you answer it because you have the same train of thought about creation as Seer does? Just to reiterate, shunya stated the following:

"Some Christians argue that God Created the universe from absolutely nothing."

To which Seer replied,

"God is not nothing."

This seemed to suggest to me that Seer believes that the universe is made out of some sort of God...stuff. I suppose. To which he kinda confirmed, though admitted he's still working on it.

No the universe is not made out of God-stuff. However God is the ultimate cause of the existence of universe, and he was the efficient cause that brought the universe into existence out of nothing.

[Kelp(p)]

No the universe is not made out of God-stuff. However God is the ultimate cause of the existence of universe, and he was the efficient cause that brought the universe into existence out of nothing.

How, though? If true nothingness is an oxymoron, then even God can't violate the laws of logic. Something from nothing sounds like an oxymoron in and of itself, actually.

[Kelp(p)]

Why can't the universe itself have necessary existence?

I made a thread about this so as not to derail this one. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...434#post120434

[Leonhard]

How, though? If true nothingness is an oxymoron, then even God can't violate the laws of logic. Something from nothing sounds like an oxymoron in and of itself, actually.

That something can't come from nothing is not an oxymoron, it simple follows from what 'nothing' is and 'something' is. And true nothingness is also not an oxymoron, its a perfectly intelligible concept, however we can only talk about it abstractly.

[Adrift]

No the universe is not made out of God-stuff. However God is the ultimate cause of the existence of universe, and he was the efficient cause that brought the universe into existence out of nothing.

Right, well I think we're in agreement.