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?

[Tcg]

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.

Some try to dig up the gaps that have been filled in order to provide space for god/gods even though we know there is no need for them. Evolution for instance explains speciation very well, but given that it also reveals that we don't need god/gods in this area they fight against the idea so as to falsely keep a gap open for god/gods.


Tcg

[Tcg]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I don't see any reason to think there ever was nothing. If there never was nothing we don't to fret about where something came from. The only question is what is that something. A perfectly unevidenced God seems like a highly unlikely candidate.


Tcg

[bjs1]

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 evidence is that the something does exist, and that all observable experience and science suggests that natural laws do not allow something to come from nothing. The deduction is there most likely exist Something which is not subject to natural laws.

[Miles]

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 evidence is that the something does exist, and that all observable experience and science suggests that natural laws do not allow something to come from nothing. The deduction is there most likely exist Something which is not subject to natural laws.

Why? If something cannot come from nothing within the natural world why must there "therefore exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing?" Why can't there be NOTHING outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing?

As a note. If you're going to assert the existence of a Something, either inside or outside time and space, you best have credible evidence for it. Whatcha got?


.

[Diagoras]

The evidence is that the something does exist, and that all observable experience and science suggests that natural laws do not allow something to come from nothing.

<bolding mine>

There are some scientists that argue to the contrary: that natural laws do (within certain limits) allow ‘something to come from nothing’.

So claiming something for ‘all science’ here isn’t quite accurate.

[alexxcJRO]

The evidence is that the something does exist, and that all observable experience and science suggests that natural laws do not allow something to come from nothing.

<bolding mine>

There are some scientists that argue to the contrary: that natural laws do (within certain limits) allow ‘something to come from nothing’.

So claiming something for ‘all science’ here isn’t quite accurate.

There is an equivocation going one between the absolute philosophical nothingness(non-existence, nothing at all) and nothing(apparent nothingness but still having the existence of something->quantum vacuum(quantum state with the lowest possible energy)).

"Vacuums are not completely empty. Constant fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all."
Apparent "out of nothing at all" does not mean real "out of absolutely nothing at all".
The fluctuations in energy that (apparently) spontaneously create mass may have an unknown cause.

The claim : "something can come out absolutely nothing at all-nonexistence is unfalsifiable" and nobody should believe the claim is neither true or false for that is irrational.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #45

There are some scientists that argue to the contrary: that natural laws do (within certain limits) allow ‘something to come from nothing’.

Do they "argue" that, or do they merely assert it? What evidence is there that Nothing can ever produce something? (Keep in mind one rule which must be followed: to get something from Nothing, you have to start with Nothing. No forces, no laws.....Nothing).

[brunumb]

The evidence is that the something does exist, and that all observable experience and science suggests that natural laws do not allow something to come from nothing. The deduction is there most likely exist Something which is not subject to natural laws.

If a being that is not subject to natural laws exists and it can create something, like the universe, from nothing, by what mechanism does it achieve that? If such a mechanism exists, then why can't it exist as part of the something that has always existed without it being a sentient creator of some sort?

[tam]

Peace to you,

The evidence is that the something does exist, and that all observable experience and science suggests that natural laws do not allow something to come from nothing. The deduction is there most likely exist Something which is not subject to natural laws.

If a being that is not subject to natural laws exists and it can create something, like the universe, from nothing, by what mechanism does it achieve that? If such a mechanism exists, then why can't it exist as part of the something that has always existed without it being a sentient creator of some sort?

To your first question, if a Being exists (regardless of whether or not that Being is subject to any natural laws), what makes you think that Being created something (like the universe) from nothing... rather than that He created something (like the universe) from Himself, from His own dynamic energy?

**

As to your second question, either way you look at it, it would seem that something must have always existed. It makes no sense that something can come from nothing (a true nothing, non-existence). And while it might be hard for many of us to get a sense of eternity (future and past), we can understand eternity future, so it is not beyond us to grasp that there could also be an eternity past. Even if we have a hard time picturing that, considering that we all have a beginning.

But I personally cannot make sense of something coming from nothing (truly nothing, non-existence, the absence of anything at all).


Peace to you.

[brunumb]

To your first question, if a Being exists (regardless of whether or not that Being is subject to any natural laws), what makes you think that Being created something (like the universe) from nothing... rather than that He created something (like the universe) from Himself, from His own dynamic energy?

If your being was the substance that existed and made everything else from itself, why couldn't something have always existed that wasn't this actual being? We tend to assume that it requires a thoughtful process to accomplish such changes, but there may well be mechanisms and laws that allow for all that without any sentient being behind it.