- This topic is empty.
- Posts
If the universe came from nothing, then nothing needs to exist in order for the universe to come from there. But the definition of nothing is non-existence. Thus the existing universe coming from non-existence is what Evolutionists need to explain. If they cannot explain it, then they rationally cannot discredit the idea of a God or creator. For the Universe to exist, quite simply there had to be something in existence for it to come from.
Only an eternal God/Life/Consciousness is the feasible answer. If it was not eternal then the universe came from nothing, if it was not living, then the universe would not contain life. It is logical to assume that the source of the Big Bang has the raw attributes of the product and if the universe is a product of a Big Bang, then the source of the Big Bang had to have all the ingredients that the universe currently displays, otherwise these attributes came out of nothing. This is one of the major flaws of Atheism. They do not even tackle such questions. It is foreign to them, yet is one of the most basic questions that they need to ask.
The only reason that any intellectual or non-intellectual is an Atheist is because they have ignored how the universe could have come from nothing. It should be one of the fundamental questions about the Universe and how life came to be. Many who believe in God have thought about this. It is one of the logical reasons for believing in a God of some kind. Is it any wonder then that Atheists need to ignore such questions and ideas to retain their belief that there is no eternal God and that the universe can come from nothing. I call it willing ignorance. It suits them to not have to think about how a universe or multiverse can pop out of nothing.
ALL MEN ARE BORN EQUAL WE THOSE THAT THINK THEY KNOW SOMETHING AND THEN LATHER FIND OUT THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY KNOW SOME THING ,BUT THEY HAVE WASTED 70 YEARS OF THEY LIVES BELIEVING THAT THEY KNEW SOMETHING ,
THEN YOU HAVE THOSE THAT THINK THEY DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ,SO THEY START TO ADMIT THAT THEIR IS SOMETHING HERE AND THERE ,AND SOON LEARN THAT HERE AND THERE AND EVERYWHERE ALL BELONGS TO ONE CENTER ,BECAUSE THEY DID NOT START WITH THEM SO THEY COULD SEE ALL AROUND THEM WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING AND SO THEY SAW GOD IN ALL THEY SEE , AND LEARN HOW TO BECOME A MEN ,IN ALL ASPECT OF THE WORD ,FOR THEY HAD FOUND THEIR FATHER WITHIN ALL THEY SAW
Feel free to read a web page I created on this subject. It is mainly aimed at Atheists to show them how ludicrous their belief in a non-created Universe is. You can leave a comment on this or that page if you feel like it.
http://quantumgrid.com/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
I will also post it in the next post.
A Universe from nothing
One of the biggest questions that many ask about the creation of the universe is where did it come from and how did the Big Bang happen. Many scientists believe that the Big Bang came from nothing around 14 billion years ago, but scientists have little or no idea how the Big Bang actually happened. This does beg the obvious question though, “how can something come from nothing?”. Surely if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there would be nothing now.
It actually turns out that many scientists today are shrinking away from the idea that the Universe came from nothing and for good reason. It just bugs a lot of people including many reputable scientists that the while the universe is a place of cause and effect, the accepted idea that the universe came from nothing is all effect and no cause.
Scientists of course have differing views of what nothing is. Some think that nothing has weight because sucking everything out of finite area in order to create a vacuum (like space) leaves nothing, but it supposedly weighs something. So let’s be honest here, if nothing actually weighs something, then let’s call it something instead. Just because we cannot directly detect something doesn’t mean that it is nothing.
Abstract
Given this, I make the following argument where one of three propositions must be true as to how the universe came to be. I can further prove which of the three propositions is true, thus demonstrating with irrefutable logic the origin of the universe. My approach uses a simple process of elimination where the universe came into being either by nothing, something, or someone. These three words cover every option imaginable and no matter what your view, it will fit into one of the three options. Atheists can choose to believe in either nothing or something, while Theists believe in someone. So let’s look at each option rationally.
The Nothing option
Some people including a number of reputable scientists believe that everything came from nothing. The idea that nothing actually caused anything is really impossible because nothing by definition is ‘no thing’. If it turns out that ‘no thing’ can actually do something, then it cannot be nothing in the true definition of that word, rather it had to be something all along. That alone makes this option a non-starter, because nothing does nothing because it is nothing and the fact that there is something, proves that nothing is not the origin. If there was nothing, there would be nothing now. It is as simple as that. However, given this obvious fact that practically anyone can understand, the idea that nothing begat everything is still argued as a possible candidate as to the origin of the universe. So let’s dig a little deeper and give this view another chance.
Some scientists argue that there is science and mathematics behind the idea that everything came from nothing. It goes something like the this: Inflationary Theory or Cosmic Inflation says that the universe is expanding and this expansion is exponential or at least speeding up. There is some very good science behind this which I am not going to delve into, as I do not wish to diverge. Suffice to say that this theory suggests that positive energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero, so it really consists of essentially nothing. The meaning of “nothing” is of course somewhat ambiguous because it turns out that nothing is really a vacuum or place with no stuff that we know of.
Putting this explanation to one side for a moment, it has to be said that there is no escaping the fact that if nothing does something, then it is something and not nothing. But a look at Quantum theory and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, (according to some), provides an explanation for how energy may have come out of nothing. It has to do with ‘quantum fluctuations’. It assumes that particles and antiparticles form and quickly annihilate each other which is what is believed happened at one of the earliest stages of the universe. One idea is that one fluctuation lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation leading to our universe. Of course if you delve deeper into such speculation, you have to conclude that in order for this to happen, there has to exist laws such as gravity, and/or particle pairs etc. That surely is not nothing, however it doesn’t stop some from saying that the universe came from nothing. In truth, that is ‘something’ and you don’t need to be a brilliant scientific mind to see that nothing cannot be the source of the universe.
But let’s not take this option off the table yet. Lets look at the math. We know that infinity can produce finite and even a zero result. It is easily understood that in everyday things we see examples of finite and zero contained within a bigger realm that seems uncountable. Let’s look at an example of zero and how it can be produced. If I multiply zero by zero or add zero to zero, then I end up with zero. For a real application, let’s take a situation where there is zero flammable gas in a room. You can conclude either that, there never existed flammable gas in this room or you can say that there was flammable gas, but all of it is gone due perhaps to being burned up. This example is of course not adequate in explaining the science of one positive particle annihilating a negative one to bring about zero energy, but for the sake of common sense, we can see that the state of no flammable gas is explained either by it never existing in the first place or by existing and being burned up, cancelled out, or transformed into something else like heat.
The point with this is that just because we observe or work out zero in a deduction or experiment, it is no proof that nothing was the first thing. Saying that the universe came from nothing is either saying that the universe and everything in it never existed in any form at the earliest stage, or that it came from something that we measure as zero. If it is the latter, then it is really like a swinging pendulum that is sitting dead on zero at the time of measurement or speculation, but is in reality moving or fluctuating from side to side before and after that measurement or speculation.
Scientists who say that everything came from nothing are really saying that all existence that supposedly came from nothing is really just a balance of negative and positive which equals zero, but it is a no brainer that something must exist in order for there to be positive and negative anything to take place. The fact you can make flammable gas disappear or reduce to zero is no indication that it can come out from nothing, rather that it exists but you can produce a zero result in the right conditions. Observers can easily find zero within a realm of somethings. We often witness no rain for example and when it does rain, it doesn’t mean that it came from nothing. In other words if you see something from nothing, then if you go back further from nothing, you should again see something. If a positive and negative particle annihilate each other, that actually suggests a construct of some kind that makes this possible. It suggests that something exists in order for this result to happen. If you still believe it is possible that everything really did come from absolutely nothing (with something never existing before that), then all you have is a belief, that requires faith, with no proof or logic to back up the view whatsoever.
On the outset, the Nothing option had a 33% chance of being right (of the three options) but upon simple deduction and analysis the chance that the universe came from nothing just sunk to 0% because it turns out that it is impossible for nothing to do anything if we respect the true meaning of the word ‘nothing’. The chances of the Nothing option being right is zero and we know this because if there was nothing before the universe, then there would be nothing now. But something must have existed because many things exist. You exist. I exist. So we move on to the other two options. The Something option and the Someone option. On the outset, each of these last two options have a whopping 50 percent chance of being right.
The Something option
Looking at the idea that something was the cause of the universe seems more feasible now, especially since it is obvious that the Nothing option is a non-starter. Whatever we observe, we never really think it was nothing that caused it. If there is a fire, we would never conclude that it came from nothing, but that the fire was caused by something. Similarly the universe is no different. It must have had a cause. Something gave it a push. Something influenced something, or something made something from itself.
I do however need to point out at this stage that the Something option could actually include the Someone/God option as a god is something by the definition of that word. For practical reasons however, I will put this Someone option into its own category and say that the Something option means anything that is not nothing or a god of some kind.
This means that the Something option must be defined as a non-intelligent, non-aware, and non-living thing which produced the universe. This Something option could also include the universe itself. The Something option must also cater for the belief that this Something must be eternal, otherwise we are back to the Nothing option because something that was preceded by nothing brings us back to the Nothing option which we have already discovered is a non-starter.
The Something option could perhaps be a force, a law, a particle, energy, or even something we have no understanding of. It could be gravity or might be light. Perhaps it is just something completely unknown to us. The thing with the Something option is that because this option has to be non-intelligent, unaware, and possessing no consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that whatever this something is, it must obviously possesses the IQ of zero. Because it lacks awareness and cannot make intelligent conscious decisions, some questions need to be asked. How does an eternal dead something give birth to consciousness? How does one know for sure that this something that caused the universe doesn’t itself possess that consciousness, after all it produced it. Also, why is it that Something which by reason of not being aware or alive come up with better inventions and designs than humans who can think and are aware. I mean a dead something with no intelligence would mean that a person with the IQ of 1, would have an advantage over whatever caused the universe, yet even if Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton lived for billions of years, could they make a universe? Of course these great men wouldn’t even understand 1% of all that the universe had to offer, even if they could observe the universe from beginning to end. And considering that the whole universe was determined at the first moments of the Big Bang, then that gives this something with no intelligence less than a second to determine everything that the universe was, is now, and will be in the future. This also includes life and you.
When you see the universe with its collection of billions of galaxies, it does seems ludicrous that something with the IQ of a rock has produced complex design and invention to such a degree that the combined intelligence and creativity of the human race is not even comparable. We can at best copy that which we find in nature and the universe. Is it really possible that something with the IQ of zero and no consciousness can come up with better technology than conscious beings? And how does a non-conscious anything assemble the micro and the macro into one huge system that is so complex it is beyond our ability to understand it all?
You could counter this argument by saying that a computer has no consciousness or awareness, and yet it harbors cyberspace which contains digital worlds and places where conscious beings can inhabit or interact. But that argument is moot when we consider that every part of a computer and cyberspace and its contained digital worlds are all the direct result of intelligence and the consciousness of man. A computer harbouring cyberspace could not come from nothing. It has a creator.
The other major thing that doesn’t bode well for the Something option is that this option also assumes that the universe or existence didn’t really have a beginning. You might argue strongly against that, but we already know why it has to be eternal. If the something that caused the universe was not eternal, infinite, existing forever, then it must have come from either nothing or an earlier something in which case we need to follow the causes till we arrive at the first something. If that first something is not infinite, then it came from nothing, the very option we know is impossible. In addition, scientists over the last 50 years have been adamant in their belief that the universe had a beginning. Of course they could be wrong, but that is what they have been teaching the world for decades now.
Let’s recap, the something option must assume that something has existed for all eternity and this original and eternal cause of the universe has always existed in some form or another.
The weakness with this option for many is that design, complexity, logic, patterns, laws, and life, and even code such as DNA suggests very strongly that there is an almighty consciousness at work here. Many argue that these attributes are the result of a mind, perhaps even a programmer. It is for these people, far more likely that the universe is a product rather than the universe being the maker or cause of itself. It is like believing that a garage, car, or computer had always existed or that they can exist without a creator or maker. We have all heard this argument before. A complex watch suggests that there is a watchmaker.
But one of the biggest hurdles with not including a consciousness of some kind in the creation process is the fact that consciousness exists. You are the proof of that. “I think, therefore I am.” said the philosopher. If existence started with no life or intelligence, then would life and intelligence exist today? It is a bit like arguing that the Universe came from nothing to suggest that consciousness came from something non-conscious.
Further, imagine a universe without life. Does it really exist if there is no observer? In many scientific experiments done at quantum level, they seem to indicate that some things do not happen unless they are observed. Upon observation, the result changes or becomes certain. This has led many scientists to believe that reality and time are an illusion. Is the universe then the creator of consciousness or is consciousness the creator of the universe?
Further, we have all observed that life comes from life. Understanding this, we know that we came from our mother and she from her mother and so on. If we follow the timeline backward, it is logical that someone or some life form has to be the oldest or the first living thing. Like all things, there had to be a first. But many have not considered that if we have only ever observed life come from life, then the first life could well be an eternal life because if not, then that first life came from non-life. Thus the observable facts to date do not point to life coming from non-life, and while it has certainly been tried, no one has ever produced life from non-living matter, nor have they ever made a dead creature come alive again. If the first living thing is not eternal, then consciousness sprung from nothing or at least something not possessing the attribute of consciousness.. This too is starting to sound like the Nothing option.
The Something option seems like a non-starter when you have thought it through. The problem is that most people do not think things through even if the thinking is not complex. They just don’t devote enough time to think about such things and often their conclusions are based on things they have read here and there, but they themselves have not thought about it deeply at all. Also, predefined beliefs often skew people away from asking such basic questions. It seems after some thought that the Something option is silly like the Nothing option, although I think not quite as silly perhaps.
The Someone option
So this leaves us with the Someone option. But is this idea also ludicrous? The idea that a god created the universe or everything is of course not new. In fact it is the most believed of all the options and has been the standard premise in the history of the world. Even the early years of science was not about explaining the universe without God, but more about explaining how God created things. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived staunchly believed that God created the universe. Included are big names like the father of physics and creator of the scientific method, Sir Isaac Newton. Other big names include: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein. Speaking of the latter, Einstein never came to belief in a personal God, but he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.
However, regardless of the fact that many believe in the existence of a god of some kind, the idea that God created the universe also seems ludicrous to many. It is obviously ludicrous to Atheists otherwise they would be Agnostic. Questions that naturally arise from the idea that a god created the universe is “who made God”, “does God have a God?”, “what was before God?, “religion causes wars”, etc. Such questions and reasons however have little or nothing to do with why there might be a god. They are more of a protest.
Take the question “Who created God?”. The answer is simple, God is eternal. If God wasn’t eternal. then he wouldn’t be God. If God exists, then this God must be infinite, otherwise there was something before God meaning that God is not God. It is like asking the question, what was before infinity?
To the Atheist though, the idea of a creator is almost as offensive as believing in the existence of the tooth fairy. However, as much as your intellect may or may not be offended, it has to be said that the Someone/God option is still one of three possible options and surely it wouldn’t be fair to write off this option based on bias or belief, especially if you have no evidence, logic, or argument to the contrary. Unfortunately this is what many do. They discard this option because of bias even though nobody has proof that there is no God. The argument is often made that you do not need proof that there is no God. However that assumption is wrong. It is no different to wanting proof if you stated that there was no intelligent life outside of Earth.
As for the idea that belief in God causes wars, well people who do not believe in God also cause wars. The reality is that man causes wars. And what effect does a religious war have on the existence of God anyway? Absolutely no effect at all. The reality is people fight over all kinds of things, often politics, power and land. Even so-called religious wars are often about these things when you delve in to it. Regardless this rebuttal against a god has no bearing on there being a God.
But let’s be rational about this. Can there really be an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe? Surely this idea is as ludicrous as the Nothing and Something options we have already looked at. Where is the proof of this God now? Is it possible that God is so far removed from many people’s everyday and lifetime experience, that they simply do not believe that he could exist based on lack of experiencing this God. But is it not true that many believe in black holes or the Big Bang even though they have never seen one or experienced these.
Some things are deduced by deduction and proof of their existence is often beyond actually seeing them, but deducing they exist. So which of the three options is the most likely then? Are they all ludicrous? Is one option better than the others?
The only option
Let’s start with some basic logic and a process of deduction to see which of the three ludicrous options it must be. Remember, that one of the options must be true because Nothing, Something, and Someone covers all options. If you think that the universe was caused or created from light or gravity, then that is the something option. If it popped into existence from nothing, then that is obviously the nothing option. If the universe is sitting inside a the vaults of a matrix-style computer made by a higher intelligence, or if a God spoke the universe into being, then that is the Someone option. No matter what idea you come up with, it will fit into one of these headings.
So let’s look at numbers. They say stats never lie and numbers are the language of logic, so let’s see what we can deduce. We know that the universe or multiverse if you are that way inclined is very very big and is made up of very very small things. Let’s imagine the universe as a really big number. So how do we get really big numbers? That is easy. If we start with infinity, then using simple sums, we can come up with every number imaginable. This is what we seem to observe in the universe. We see a huge amount of phenomenon and things in the universe. But what happens if we start with zero? Well we end in zero. Zero stays zero forever. Unless you add a finite number to zero somehow, you will stay with zero. So what does this prove. It simply proves that even basic logic tells us that if there was only nothing before the universe, then there would be no universe now, only nothing with us not being here to observe anything. However, if the first cause was infinite, then it would explain the incredible amount of finites that we see. Thus, even basic of logic tells us that the first thing or cause of the universe was infinite.
Whatever is first had to have no cause because that is the definition of first in this context. Once we understand that, then there are some interesting requirements that the original or first thing must have, such as it must be eternal or infinite. If the universe has life, then life is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has order, then order is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has design, then the source of the universe has the ability to design. The ingredients and products of the universe must also be present in the source of the universe, otherwise they come from nothing which we already know is impossible.
The final analysis
Let’s wrap this up with the Something option as perhaps being the right option. This ludicrous something must be eternal, have produced intelligence, can design, create DNA code, give laws, life, even possess non-physical traits like love. But is that not a description of God? God is often described as a living entity that designed the universe, is intelligent, a law giver, eternal, and the source of love and life among an almost infinite amount of other things.
While the notion of a god creating the universe is offensive to some people, it seems that it should be at least be the less offensive option given the alternatives. Of course there are billions of people on the planet that believe in God and to them this belief is not offensive at all. Their quest is not what caused the universe but who caused the universe” and that of course is a completely different subject. To arrive at the truth here it helps to take the following quote as advice:
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” – Arthur Conan Doyle.
agree with your statement and will add that the present in time does not exist as well we are going from the passed to the future ,
I think Laurence Krauss wrote a book called the universe from nothing. I think his idea is that matter and antimatter cancel each other out but it still really feels like that doesn’t explain why nothing would split into matter and antimatter.
Well lb matter and anti matter cancel each other out then who made the rule so that it could so?
I do not believe that crap, but many do
In order to allow matter and antimatter to collide, there has to be some kind of construct for such to take place. That construct cannot be absolutely nothing.
Yes space is not nothing. It is something, perhaps a little like water.
If you had a large bucket full of water and placed a soccer ball in the middle and then rotated the ball, it would effect the water around it. Then place some ping pong balls in the bucket and they will orbit the soccer ball in a similar manner as planets going around the sun.
Thus space is a fabric or thing and Einstein explained gravity not as a force but as ripples in the fabric of space. Planets stick to their orbit because space is warped due to the presence of the sun affecting the space around it.
Scientists who say that the universe came from nothing, and then go on to explain that nothing is actually something are just being silly. It sort of gives them some ammunition against the existence of God, because they can state that everything came from nothing. Then when you delve into it, they are not actually talking about nothing at all. By then you have forgotten the argument that God is not needed because everything can come from nothing.
But we shouldn’t let them off the hook. Believing that the universe is uncreated is foolish. Even Einstein admitted that. It’s a pity that there are so many fools out there with scientific credentials and authority who preach such foolishness. And it is a bigger pity that many go along with their views even though they do not really fully understand what is being proposed. It is the blind leading the blind and the self-confessed wise preaching folly to the masses.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
