Something can't come from nothing

[nobspeople]

Recently I saw someone elsewhere make the comment, in regards to how 'the universe came to be', that you can't get something (the universe as it is today) from nothing (from before the universe existed), only to go on and say something similar to 'god is the beginning and the end', in reference to creating the universe.
I found it hypocritical to say one believes 'something can't come from nothing' and, at the same time, say 'god created the universe', appearing to mean god was here before anything and thus, came from nothing (as the person making this statement seemed to believe god was here before anything else - seemingly 'coming from nothing').

For discussion:
Where did god come from?
How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?
For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing. The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

That may be; it would be the first time I've heard that caveat made.
Seems to me, if this was the case, there's a distinction between natural and supernatural world. This would seem to indicate that the two worlds are 'too different' to exist together (simply by making such a grand distinction). Yet, we have the supernatural seeming to correlate, in some fashion, with the natural.
I wonder if this 'distinction' is another means of excusing the unknown ('well, for god, it doesn't work that way') without even knowing how exactly it works? Not to mention defining 'god' as it relates to this scenario.
That said, if god is supernatural and created the natural world, then something (natural world) did, indeed, come from nothing natural (god aka supernatural). So the natural world did come from something: the supernatural world. So, to make a statement of something can't come from nothing is incorrect.
And what did god come from?
I suppose this is 'Monday circular reasoning' at its best ....

The way I express this is that there cannot be a material (scientific) explanation for the presence of the material, that's it - you cannot use matter, energy, fields, laws to explain how these things arose.

If you really want to explain how, why these things even exist you must abandon science, it cannot be used, you must adopt some other explanatory means and that is why "God" comes up.

Only a thing that is no material can give rise to material, only a thing that is not subject to laws can give rise to laws.

A thing that can do things yet is not subject to laws is non deterministic, will, we can all understand will because we all have it.

God does tend to 'fill in the gaps', but the gaps only exist because people haven't been able to test and fill them with experiences and data yet IMO.

What are these "gaps" you speak of?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing. The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

That may be; it would be the first time I've heard that caveat made.
Seems to me, if this was the case, there's a distinction between natural and supernatural world. This would seem to indicate that the two worlds are 'too different' to exist together (simply by making such a grand distinction). Yet, we have the supernatural seeming to correlate, in some fashion, with the natural.
I wonder if this 'distinction' is another means of excusing the unknown ('well, for god, it doesn't work that way') without even knowing how exactly it works? Not to mention defining 'god' as it relates to this scenario.
That said, if god is supernatural and created the natural world, then something (natural world) did, indeed, come from nothing natural (god aka supernatural). So the natural world did come from something: the supernatural world. So, to make a statement of something can't come from nothing is incorrect.
And what did god come from?
I suppose this is 'Monday circular reasoning' at its best ....

The way I express this is that there cannot be a material (scientific) explanation for the presence of the material, that's it - you cannot use matter, energy, fields, laws to explain how these things arose.

If you really want to explain how, why these things even exist you must abandon science, it cannot be used, you must adopt some other explanatory means and that is why "God" comes up.

Only a thing that is no material can give rise to material, only a thing that is not subject to laws can give rise to laws.

A thing that can do things yet is not subject to laws is non deterministic, will, we can all understand will because we all have it.

God does tend to 'fill in the gaps', but the gaps only exist because people haven't been able to test and fill them with experiences and data yet IMO.

What are these "gaps" you speak of?

Historically, things science hasn't yet been able to prove, according to some people:
How the universe was created and when, for example. Some would point to aspects of science that shows how this or that came about but, for some, that's not enough. And for those people, the 'god did it' is good enough.
There was debate long ago, I remember, where believers claimed 'evolution doesn't show how the eye came about and, as the eye is so complex, only god could have done it'. Then, later, science showed how the eye evolved to how it is now. Up to the point science showed how that was possible, the adage 'god did it' worked for many.
Now, rather or not these examples are 'good enough' for some is immaterial as these are legit examples in which many used the 'god did it' concept.

[Miles]

For discussion:
Where did god come from?

The minds of the needy.

How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?

He can't.

For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?

How can one honestly make the claim "god exists" without compelling evidence? As I see it, either the existence of god is a disillusion or one's standards for evidence are quite low.

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing.

Only if one needs to posit such a thing in order to support a belief, but that doesn't make it real. What is lacking is actual evidence for such a thing before one can realistically start asserting anything about it . . . .

The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

. . . no matter what it may be called.


.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #13]

I think the problem is in the idea of ex nihilo and then associating that with a creator-mind which has always existed and did not come from nothing.

The thing about any creation is that it comes from something, but the idea that a creator has always existed and thus doesn't come from nothing is hard to get ones head around.

But if we accept that the universe didn't come from nothing but came from something, then at least potentially the universe has existed - at least as an idea - within that something for as long as that something has existed - and in this case - the idea has always existed.

Thus, an idea which is acted upon [made to happen] and resulted in this unfolding universe, cannot be said truthfully to have 'come from nothing'.

Therefore, there is no need to proclaim a supernatural event to what is simply an idea put into action.

This means that matter as we understand it, comes from an idea, which is then expressed and when experienced - gives anyone experiencing it from within it, the impression of a solid and real thing.

It may have the appearance of being 'supernatural' if one considers it as the product of a "Cosmic Mind" [God et al] but the thought of a god can be viewed as natural as the thing which the god-thought created, if the thought is not separated from the one who is thinking the thought.

Un-thought-unately some religions have chosen to define the creator as separate from the creation - by deciding that the experience is so real-like that it MUST indeed, be real, without noting that any thought from a creator god can be experienced as real.

It gives rise to a lot of speculative mythology unsuccessfully attempting to make the dots all connect.

Problems therefore arise - and questions such as these get asked.

Nothing comes from nothing - everything which can be seen to have a beginning comes from something.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing. The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

Yeah. Pretty much.

I cant even believe that the "....but where did God come from" question is still being asked in 2022.

The question has been dealt with ad naeseam and if this is supposed to be a "aha, gotcha" question...then umm...

[Diagoras]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world.

While the idea is counter-intuitive, that can't be conclusively ruled out. At the quantum level, there are certain phenomena that give that impression. Furthermore, our current physical laws are not currently sufficient to describe the singularity generally thought to exist at the 'start' of the universe, so further speculation is just that - speculation.

Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing.

<bolding mine>

Or - there exists a physical law which describes a singularity completely. The fact that we are currently ignorant of this law shouldn't mean we should cease efforts to find it.

The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

No harm in naming something 'God', I suppose. The dangers in doing that are: firstly, it becomes all too easy to rely on; secondly, it creates the illusion of an explanation when none exist; thirdly, it says nothing about which god.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #13]

I think the problem is in the idea of ex nihilo and then associating that with a creator-mind which has always existed and did not come from nothing.

The thing about any creation is that it comes from something, but the idea that a creator has always existed and thus doesn't come from nothing is hard to get ones head around.

I've always regarded such claims as mindless (no thought given to . . . .) assertions driven by the need to have a god, and with an "end of discussion" appended, as it were.

But if we accept that the universe didn't come from nothing but came from something, then at least potentially the universe has existed - at least as an idea - within that something for as long as that something has existed - and in this case - the idea has always existed.

But doesn't an idea need a mind to exist?

Thus, an idea which is acted upon [made to happen] and resulted in this unfolding universe, cannot be said truthfully to have 'come from nothing'.

Who is doing all this acting? Certainly not any god because god has not been shown to exist.

Therefore, there is no need to proclaim a supernatural event to what is simply an idea put into action.

Not following your "therefore," but okay.

This means that matter as we understand it, comes from an idea, which is then expressed and when experienced - gives anyone experiencing it from within it, the impression of a solid and real thing.

Err, come again. Not understanding this continued "therefore" at all. How could matter, physical substance in general, manifest from an idea?

It may have the appearance of being 'supernatural' if one considers it as the product of a "Cosmic Mind" [God et al] but the thought of a god can be viewed as natural as the thing which the god-thought created, if the thought is not separated from the one who is thinking the thought.

Okay, you've lost me. In order for a "Cosmic Mind" to enter the picture you have to show where it comes from, or at least how it arose.



.

[Diagoras]

I cant even believe that the "....but where did God come from" question is still being asked in 2022.

I'm guessing that's a figure of speech, since evidence exists of the question being asked.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #17]

I think the problem is in the idea of ex nihilo and then associating that with a creator-mind which has always existed and did not come from nothing.

The thing about any creation is that it comes from something, but the idea that a creator has always existed and thus doesn't come from nothing is hard to get ones head around.

I've always regarded such claims as mindless (no thought given to . . . .) assertions driven by the need to have a god, and with an "end of discussion" appended, as it were.

Often that is the case.
In the case of a Cosmic Mind having always existed, need has nothing to do with it existing or not
Even so, what exactly qualifies as "the need to have a god" - until I can know the answer to that, I cannot regard things in that way, as any kind of explanation.

As the thread heading sates. "Something can't come from nothing". So, since our scientist aren't claiming the universe has always existed, and are agreeing that it 'came into existence' - we are left with the question;

"Where did the universe derive?",

unanswered...

...but not necessarily unanswerable.

But if we accept that the universe didn't come from nothing but came from something, then at least potentially the universe has existed - at least as an idea - within that something for as long as that something has existed - and in this case - the idea has always existed.

But doesn't an idea need a mind to exist?

Yes. We know this because we associate our own ideas with 'mind'. Therefore, in order for an idea to exist, first a mind has to exist.
I translate that to this;

The universe we are experiencing is the product of an idea which is being given attention to by the mind having the idea.

Essentially this translates to my equating what I experience of this universe as it is in this moment of my being within it - as an ongoing thought being built upon by an initial idea.

Thus, an idea which is acted upon [made to happen] and resulted in this unfolding universe, cannot be said truthfully to have 'come from nothing'.

Who is doing all this acting?

For sake of applying a label, I call the 'who' the 'Cosmic Mind' but also recognize its handiwork within the trail left behind by human activity.
The 'acting' is done by the mind itself, and it has enabled the universe to be the way it is so that it can play a great number of roles simultaneously.

Re humans, this equates to playing roles ranging from pure ignorance to full on revelation.

Certainly not any god because god has not been shown to exist.

This depends entirely on one's own interpretation. We being thoughts within a thought, defining god is naturally enough having to be an ongoing process as the science reveals more of the nature of the universe to us.

How we interpret that revealing, appears to be entirely up to us as individuals.

Therefore, there is no need to proclaim a supernatural event to what is simply an idea put into action.

Not following your "therefore," but okay.

Let me know if you want more clarification on that, okay?

Meantime, for other readers sake;

What we might think of as 'supernatural' is simply the way in which we can express it within the confines of our own mind.
Once we change how we see the universe, we change how we interpret the universe, in our minds-eye.
If we can understand the universe as a product of a natural thing - even be that that thing is an ongoing thought in the mind of a creator-being - we can understand such to be a natural thing.

Or - if we choose to understand such a thing as the mind of a creator, as being 'supernatural', we can equally understand any thought It has which produces something as grandiose as this universe, as being 'supernatural'.
My overall point is that how we see things has to align with how we say things are.

Re that, neither theist nor non-theists have the edge while they separate creator from creation.

This means that matter as we understand it, comes from an idea, which is then expressed and when experienced - gives anyone experiencing it from within it, the impression of a solid and real thing.

Err, come again. Not understanding this continued "therefore" at all. How could matter, physical substance in general, manifest from an idea?

Because a mind must be having the idea. Remember, I am specifically speaking of this universe we think of and experience as being real.

We can touch it and play with it and get hurt by it et al.

That is because it is made in such a way that we can experience an ongoing thought of the creator-mind - this Universe - as if it were real, at the same time as we can have thoughts of our own which allow us to take what is available and shape it into being a real thing, here in this universe.

It is consciousness behaving as consciousness behaves.

It may have the appearance of being 'supernatural' if one considers it as the product of a "Cosmic Mind" [God et al] but the thought of a god can be viewed as natural as the thing which the god-thought created, if the thought is not separated from the one who is thinking the thought.

Okay, you've lost me. In order for a "Cosmic Mind" to enter the picture you have to show where it comes from, or at least how it arose.

I can only show how an aspect of it arose - re the human being specifically and conscious beings in general.

In that, it 'comes from' its own self...and the universe is an image of It - having also 'come from' somewhere into being something which is experienced by consciousness as a 'real thing'.

It didn't- in reality - come from anywhere outside of its own self. It has always existed... in one form and another.

[The same can and does get said of the universe alone, by way of an explanation.]

As long as one remembers that something can't come from nothing, the only logical explanation for there being something, anything, and everything - is that it didn't come from anywhere. It simply always existed.

In one form or another...

[Athetotheist]

[*][Replying to nobspeople in post #1

For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?

Since you yourself admit that "eternity" isn't a concept which humans can understand, why couldn't a creator always have existed?

The universe cannot have created itself, because that would require it to have pre-existed itself. Since the universe can't be its own origin, its origin must lie in something else.

Even if the universe has always existed, there's still the question of why it has ever existed. Logically, it shouldn't have to. And any material explanation for its existence would just be part of the material universe we're trying to explain and, thus, not an adequate answer.