Something Rather than Nothing

[Story]

This is an argument I've been working on, I'd like to hear responses on how I could improve it or make it easier to understand.

A question I've heard often is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Firstly this question betrays it self, because the adverb "Why" already supposes a purpose, cause or intention. The question we should be asking is not the intention behind there being something rather than nothing, but the process of how there is something rather than nothing. If I say "Why does the switch turn off the light?", the answer could come "because it's convenient". "Why" already implies the answer that there is some purpose, so the question should be:

"How is there something rather than nothing"

Now, if I say "How does the switch turn off the light?", you could only explain this with the science involved.

Secondly, there is both something and nothing. "Nothing" represents the absence of something that could potentially or hypothetically be present. If I say "There is nothing in the box", what I mean is "None of the things that could be in the box are". If I say "John owned nothing" what I mean is "None of the things John could own were owned by him.". So there are nothings. Therefore, the question should be:

"How is there something rather than no everything?"

This is a question worth answering if we assume there was once no everything. If there was ever no everything, then even an omnipotent deity could not exist, because no everything includes the non-existence of concepts like omnipotence and gods.

No everything would mean no anything... maybe we would never exist if there was no everything.

However this is only if we assume there was once no everything, which makes no sense because no everything would include no time and since time could not exist then there could never be a time where there was no time, right?

Not exactly...

This is where my argument might get a little confusing.

Apparently, time could just be an illusion. In the same way that free-will could be an illusion. We are made up of complicated evolved biological mechanisms that allow us thoughts and also what we call free-will. That being said we are also made up of complicated physical mechanisms that produce for us what we call time.

Everything we see in life is a result of 4 fundamental forces. These forces are called electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity. What this tells us is that studying these forces will give us an understanding of how everything works. However at a part of studying these forces we hit a bunch of weird shit; Quantum Dynamics.

Now, I'm not going to go into detail about how it all works, but I'm going to raise to attention one particular problem with it: Time. Time does not appear to work in the same fashion it does at our level. There have been a degree of problems explaining exactly how it works, however one valid theory that sets a model for how time does work has been formulated and dubbed the bizarre name Imaginary Time.

Imaginary Time doesn't work like time as we perceive it. It is seen as though it is a traversal dimension in space. There is no beginning or end in Imaginary Time, nor past or future. Seeing as this is a part of what governs the fundamental interactions that make up our existence it suggests that Imaginary Time may be the true reality.

What this would mean is that there could be a time where there was no time, but that things could still exist within it.

 

[DeusExNihilum]

It makes a good start, I like the progression from conclusion to conclusion you used but it did get a little confusing towards the middle and the jump from "Something from Nothing" to "What is time?" is a little jarring. I understand it all follows a linear progression of thought but you'd likely lose the person you're talking this through with. Since both subjects covered are really quite large, I would suggest sticking to one as much as humanly possible without branching into something just as complex and mind-boggling. If tackling the subject of "Time" is a needed part of your argument, I would suggest making sure it is always clear how what you're saying relates back to the original subject.

This is especially important when dealing with subjects that defy (at the very least) the English language. Phrases like "A time where there was no time" are basically nonsensical if you think about it, So keeping your listener/reader/opponent on board is doubly important (and you don't want to give them ammunition).


I've find the anti-atheist argument that "Something can't come from Nothing" as being bizarre and a straw man.

1. Who says that there was ever "Nothing"? No matter how far back science has taken us, there has always been something there; No atheist I have ever met, nor relevant scientist I have ever listened to, has ever said that before the plank epoch there was nothing, then all of a sudden a universe just POOF'd into being.

2. Is "nothing" even possible? There is no evidence of "Nothing" ever existing, and some physicists believe that "Nothing" itself is unstable prompting another question - If "nothing" is possible, who says that "nothing" can "exist" indefinitely?

3. What exactly do they think that God created the universe out of? Itself? Does God routinely send bits of itself to hell?

 

[retardedsociety]

Question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Answer: "The universe is, what else could it be?"



What we call nothing is not understandable by our perspective, there is always something, even the void of space is space and time, so there is something, literally everywhere, and if science has determine that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it transforms". Then we have to come to understand that the universe always was, and always is, and quite possibly always will be, only that it keeps changing, just like evolution.

We could be on the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th universe for all we know, and we sit here and pretend there is such a thing as nothing, that is not what science says, that is what religions say, that there was nothing and gods magically created everything out of nothing.


Ironic isn't it?

 

[Paulhoff]

There is only 1 nothing, but there can be unlimited somethings.

Paul

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I really like this. There is one minor thing that bugs me, however:

Secondly, there is both something and nothing. "Nothing" represents the absence of something that could potentially or hypothetically be present. If I say "There is nothing in the box", what I mean is "None of the things that could be in the box are". If I say "John owned nothing" what I mean is "None of the things John could own were owned by him.". So there are nothings. Therefore, the question should be:

"How is there something rather than no everything?"

Something about this seems a little off... I can't quite put my finger on it, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but shouldn't it be, "How is there something rather than not something" instead? Since everything might include hypotheticals that do not exist, or phenomena that once exist (or will exist) but do not currently occur.

Or perhaps it's just that I'm uncertain if 'no everything' really is an antonym for 'something.'

 

[lrkun]

The presumption that there is something rather than nothing may be traced in the principle that there is cause for every effect. This is a commonly used argument by theists and philosophers in a sense that there are things in which due to the lack of applicable technology in the light of knowing what actually started everything. One purpose of this argument is to disregard the search for the truth of the first cause, because there is no applicable means in knowing how it actually started. Of course, science tries its best in making valid theories and hypothesis wherein it explains how it all came to be, using only the available and observable facts that surrounds us.

What is the common and accepted first cause?

In general, it God.

Why God?

Because god explains that gap, wherein through his or her will, everything came to be.

Is this a valid reason?

No.

Why?

Because, it begs the question.

Firstly, we are not sure that there is a god.

How sure are we that there is no god?

I don't know. Unless and until the term god is defined in a specific manner, then the answer will be resolved in the light of empirical evidence.

Ex. If you define god as that which exists in the bible, the only proof you will find, using the bible as a source is Jesus. The problem with the Jesus case is that he may have never existed, because the proofs or evidence that he did exist is only through eye witnesses. These eyewithnesses can't be considered as proof under a laboratory experiment, due to their decades of descripancies.

Ex. If you define god as minerva or the moon, then there is proof that she exists. The moon can be seen in the sky, however, we do know that such really is a satelite that orbits the earth. I a sense, it has a dual meaning. A god and at the same time a satelite.

Secondly, we don't have adequate information as a basis for how gods does his thing. How do we observe the supernatural? How do we measure the supernatural? As of now, there is no accurate way to measure this through a laboratory test.

Thirdly, if god really exists, there is only a five percent chance that it really does, because in a way, maybe this god has a power that allows him or her to be beyond our comprehension. Imagine a human observing an atom. Does the atom know that it is being observed? or maybe such a god can't communicate with his creation. or maybe if god did create us, it may have been by accident. Also, other causes may easily explain why we are here and a god is not required in such an alternative.

Fourthly, consider that time does not really exist, that change happens, insert the theory of conservation of energy wherein matter changes its form. Maybe reality happens in such a manner that the change consistently happens and only man inserted the idea of time in order to make sense of the changes and perceive a reference point.

In a way, the argument that there is something rather than nothing circumvents the search for the beginning. Any theory or hypothesis is valid, because we can't go back in time (assuming time does flow).

Is something rather than nothing a good argument? Yes. Not in a sense that it is scientific, but in a sense that it allows us to focus on the present, wherein we can concentrate on how to make our lives progressive and be useful for the whole. But as an answer to the question whether there really is a first cause, it may never be known.

Therefore, to my mind, the idea that a god exists is still plausible. I only chose to reject such, because it is not necessary and has no positive effect in my way of life.

What do you think?

 

[Paulhoff]

God is a worthless answer to any question seeing that it can be anything anyone wants it to be.

Paul

 

[lrkun]

God is a worthless answer to any question seeing that it can be anything anyone wants it to be.

Paul

I agree. A better term to use is unknown. It's not really necessary as an explanation.

 

[RedYellow]

I think that there is 'something' because 'nothing' can only exist as a concept. By definition, nothing is non-existent. Therefore, the existence of 'something' is necessary and probably eternal. I believe that this necessary something is the universe.

There is no such thing as 'nothing,' there never has been and never will be.

 

[lrkun]

I think that there is 'something' because 'nothing' can only exist as a concept. By definition, nothing is non-existent. Therefore, the existence of 'something' is necessary and probably eternal. I believe that this necessary something is the universe.

There is no such thing as 'nothing,' there never has been and never will be.

Do you think you can reconcile your idea with the law of conservation of energy? I think you can further support your idea by combining the two.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Interesting Idea

 

[RedYellow]

I think that there is 'something' because 'nothing' can only exist as a concept. By definition, nothing is non-existent. Therefore, the existence of 'something' is necessary and probably eternal. I believe that this necessary something is the universe.

There is no such thing as 'nothing,' there never has been and never will be.

Do you think you can reconcile your idea with the law of conservation of energy? I think you can further support your idea by combining the two.

Yeah, I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but it does seem pretty intuitive to me. People wonder why there isnt just 'nothing,' but nothing would be non-existence itself, and non existence can't be a property of anything, except perhaps when you talk about conceptual entities. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, I know there are some very smart folks on this board, and theoretical physics is something I've been moderately self-educated on.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The question is used to avoid a problem. The problem still exists even with the inclusion of some "god" nonsense or other. Why is there a "god" instead of "no god"? Shifting the question around doesn't avoid OR answer the fundamental issue. The difference is that scientists understand that there's a question and work towards a potential answer. Theists assume an answer, and cut off all lines of inquiry into the question.

 

[Andiferous]

It is so curious that you posed this question, as I was reviewing Watt again this afternoon.

"For the only way one can speak of nothing is to speak of it as though it were something, just as the only way one can speak of God is to speak of him as though he were a man, which to be sure he was, in a sense, for a time, and as the only way one can speak of man, even our anthropologists have realized that, is to speak of him as though he were a termite."

- Samuel Beckett, Watt

 

[lrkun]

It is so curious that you posed this question, as I was reviewing Watt again this afternoon.

"For the only way one can speak of nothing is to speak of it as though it were something, just as the only way one can speak of God is to speak of him as though he were a man, which to be sure he was, in a sense, for a time, and as the only way one can speak of man, even our anthropologists have realized that, is to speak of him as though he were a termite."

- Samuel Beckett, Watt

Do you mean to say that in order to understand God, assuming he or she is nothing, is to imagine him or her in a manner that has been experienced by the individual person, and such experience is dependent upon the person's personal underestanding or perception of the world?

If so, do you agree that there is a need for the premise that in the beginning there must be something rather than nothing? If yes, why? If no, why?

To my mind, the only good reason for this statement is that it is intuitive. It can be observed, supposing we are in an enclosed laboratory experiment, in order for an effect to happen, a cause must first be singled out. In a word, from the effect, we can analyse the effect and rebuild it by synthesizing the individual factors that make up the effect.

For example, in order to make fire, one must know what burns and causes something to burn. Let us suppose a candle is burning. All that is available is a match and a candle. After a short period, the candle no longer burns. In order to start the flame, we spark the match and burn the tip of the candle in order to start it up again.

Cause and effect. This is why, there is an assumption that something must have caused the effect of our current universe. Of course, I am not certain whether there really is a first cause, but because of this, do you think we can assume that there was such? Alternatively, it can be observed that there really wasn't a creation of the effect, because all that was required is already available. In a sense, it's just a loop, where something from one form changed into something which is another.

Now, I know it's counter intuitive that there is nothing that starts something. However, how do we provide or hypothesize the beginning of everything? I lean to the side that the reason is not god, but we must in a way provide another alternative. For certain it is unknown. What is unknown is the first cause. Something might have existed in the past which created our small corner of reality.

Therefore, this first principle can be assumed. It's just that we don't know what it is or how it started. In a way, everything is already available. Something already existing changes. Certainly such is not god, but an already existing material which changes characteristics by reason of a law that governs our current existence.

 

[RedYellow]

For the only way one can speak of nothing is to speak of it as though it were something, just as the only way one can speak of God is to speak of him as though he were a man, which to be sure he was, in a sense, for a time, and as the only way one can speak of man, even our anthropologists have realized that, is to speak of him as though he were a termite."

- Samuel Beckett, Watt

Is he making a case against God? I can't tell, cause it seems like he's saying that God is the same as nothing.

 

[lrkun]

For the only way one can speak of nothing is to speak of it as though it were something, just as the only way one can speak of God is to speak of him as though he were a man, which to be sure he was, in a sense, for a time, and as the only way one can speak of man, even our anthropologists have realized that, is to speak of him as though he were a termite."

- Samuel Beckett, Watt

Is he making a case against God? I can't tell, cause it seems like he's saying that God is the same as nothing.

In brief, the above quote talks about something from broad to specific or general to particular or generic to concrete. It implies that for nothing to be understood, it must be related to something. In a way, nothing is known about god, so, in a way to relate to him or her or it, one can humanize god, hence the idea that god made man in his own image. Now, in understanding man, it can be observed that his or her behavior is similar or akin to the pattern done by lower life-forms or distant relatives. In the end, man can be understood as if he were an animal, a monkey, or an ant.

In short, we simplify that which is complex. Of course, the accuracy is really dependent on the variance between the former and the latter. For certain, we know nothing about god, because such is only a concept or idea that we imagine or we think exists. A higher power, due to things which we can't explain. For example, how do we explain the existence of a piece of matter? How did it came to be? The very structure and the smallest part, where did it come from? Now, our minds are designed to see patterns. Whether the pattern is true or not, it is remembered by the brain. A good demonstration of how this works it through the link system of mnemonic. For instance, if we talk about the subject fear or danger, you'll remember the emotion. Now if I introduce a certain danger, like a kangaroo for example. Assuming you don't know anything about kangaroos, and I say that if a wild kangaroo smiles, it means it will kick you. By having read this statement, you will never forget it. Every time you see a kangaroo, you'll be paying attention to it's smile. Funny huh? That is a false information that you'll never forget.

 

[Story]

It makes a good start, I like the progression from conclusion to conclusion you used but it did get a little confusing towards the middle and the jump from "Something from Nothing" to "What is time?" is a little jarring.

Yes, I'll admit it does get a little weird at that part.

I really like this. There is one minor thing that bugs me, however:

Something about this seems a little off... I can't quite put my finger on it, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but shouldn't it be, "How is there something rather than not something" instead? Since everything might include hypotheticals that do not exist, or phenomena that once exist (or will exist) but do not currently occur.

Or perhaps it's just that I'm uncertain if 'no everything' really is an antonym for 'something.'

Yes, I considered that actually, but I thought that "No Something" could still mean the absence of a particular something and even "No Anything" could mean the absence of any particular thing, but "No Everything" seemed to express the message best to me.

It is so curious that you posed this question, as I was reviewing Watt again this afternoon.

"For the only way one can speak of nothing is to speak of it as though it were something, just as the only way one can speak of God is to speak of him as though he were a man, which to be sure he was, in a sense, for a time, and as the only way one can speak of man, even our anthropologists have realized that, is to speak of him as though he were a termite."

- Samuel Beckett, Watt

Yes, I considered this actually. When we speak of nothings, we're actually speaking of something. Nothing is a concept, which is used as if it were a reference to something and it has to be, for if it weren't then we couldn't have a word for it, which is a problem with language, because we can't have a word for something that isn't, for once it is spoken it is (hypothetically). There is not nothing, nothing there is.

It does God a great disservice, him being omniscient and all, that he would ever use language to communicate. A very poor display of omniscience and omnipotence indeed. Language is more befitting of the tiny creature that is man.

 

[borrofburi]

It's an interesting route to take. I wonder if any theist will actually ever concede it though...

I usually take the route of pointing out that they always give a false trichotomy (either something came from nothing, or something always existed, or god did it) and point out that god is part of something, and thus if god always existed they are still claiming that something always existed, or of god came from nothing, they are still claiming that something came from nothing; and that as a result, god is an extra and unhelpful concept.

Of course then they always resort to special pleading, saying god is uniquely able to have not always existed but have also not come from nothing, at the same time... Some even try to use scientific arguments, or say things like time came into being as god did, and that's how it's possible. This is where my route always ends: it seems impossible to explain to them that any mechanism they propose by which god can avoid the dichotomy is (1) a post hoc rationalization, and an attempt to add a bunch of attributes to god to magically make it a viable concept and (2) could just as easily be said to be a property of our universe, cutting out the middle man.

Maybe your route is easier to understand...

 

[borrofburi]

I think that there is 'something' because 'nothing' can only exist as a concept. By definition, nothing is non-existent. Therefore, the existence of 'something' is necessary and probably eternal. I believe that this necessary something is the universe.

There is no such thing as 'nothing,' there never has been and never will be.

Do you think you can reconcile your idea with the law of conservation of energy? I think you can further support your idea by combining the two.

He doesn't have to, conservation of energy is something we observe in this universe at this time and at this place. There's no great reason to assume that the rules science discovers, being inductive, are truly universal, especially when conservation of energy is a statistical "law", unlike, say, the fundamental forces.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just to comment on the original post, as it stands before any changes...

This is an argument I've been working on, I'd like to hear responses on how I could improve it or make it easier to understand.

A question I've heard often is: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Firstly this question betrays it self, because the adverb "Why" already supposes a purpose, cause or intention. The question we should be asking is not the intention behind there being something rather than nothing, but the process of how there is something rather than nothing. If I say "Why does the switch turn off the light?", the answer could come "because it's convenient". "Why" already implies the answer that there is some purpose, so the question should be:

"How is there something rather than nothing"

Now, if I say "How does the switch turn off the light?", you could only explain this with the science involved.

Fine - nicely pointed out distinction.

Secondly, there is both something and nothing. "Nothing" represents the absence of something that could potentially or hypothetically be present. If I say "There is nothing in the box", what I mean is "None of the things that could be in the box are". If I say "John owned nothing" what I mean is "None of the things John could own were owned by him.". So there are nothings. Therefore, the question should be:

"How is there something rather than no everything?"

"There is nothing in the box" - to what "nothing" refers needs to be clarified, in my opinion.

For example, "nothing" can mean objects - however, even if there aren't any objects, there may be air within the box. Even if we say that "nothing" includes air, we then have to ask does this definition also include "space(-time)"? - which implies that space-time doesn't exist either in the box.

This is a question worth answering if we assume there was once no everything. If there was ever no everything, then even an omnipotent deity could not exist, because no everything includes the non-existence of concepts like omnipotence and gods.

No everything would mean no anything... maybe we would never exist if there was no everything.

However this is only if we assume there was once no everything, which makes no sense because no everything would include no time and since time could not exist then there could never be a time where there was no time, right?

Not exactly...

This is where my argument might get a little confusing.

Apparently, time could just be an illusion. In the same way that free-will could be an illusion. We are made up of complicated evolved biological mechanisms that allow us thoughts and also what we call free-will. That being said we are also made up of complicated physical mechanisms that produce for us what we call time.

Everything we see in life is a result of 4 fundamental forces. These forces are called electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravity. What this tells us is that studying these forces will give us an understanding of how everything works. However at a part of studying these forces we hit a bunch of weird shit; Quantum Dynamics.

Now, I'm not going to go into detail about how it all works, but I'm going to raise to attention one particular problem with it: Time. Time does not appear to work in the same fashion it does at our level. There have been a degree of problems explaining exactly how it works, however one valid theory that sets a model for how time does work has been formulated and dubbed the bizarre name Imaginary Time.

Imaginary Time doesn't work like time as we perceive it. It is seen as though it is a traversal dimension in space. There is no beginning or end in Imaginary Time, nor past or future. Seeing as this is a part of what governs the fundamental interactions that make up our existence it suggests that Imaginary Time may be the true reality.

What this would mean is that there could be a time where there was no time, but that things could still exist within it.

Yes - it does get confusing talking about time separate from space-time.

[My own take on time is that that's how a n-dimensional being experiences the (n+1)th dimension - but that's just me, not science.]

I'm not sure that that part of it works as well as the first.

Kindest regards,

James