Not a theist, but you do realise that there are actually forms of religion who dont need the creator who does X/Y/Z or however you intrepret god in a theists mind?

You can simply define that "something that has always been" = "god", problem solved.

Right. That is essentially pantheism.

There is no such thing as nothing -- it's a contradiction in terms, a self-contradiction -- and the quantum field as a replacement for conventional/mythical/imaginary gods is a sublime solution.

This topic like others will just be guesses. Like, which came first chicken or the egg. Science has some merit that the big bang created us...youtube bill nye.

That's good, Original. Just like Theism is illogical. Agnostic is the way to go.


Why? How can you know something, without knowing there was nothing?

In my opinion, neither logical nor illogical would apply to Agnosticism, given that the Agnostic is not advancing a putative truth claim. "I don't know" is a legitimate answer to a question, but it carries no epistemic burden like Atheism or Theism do.

Addendum: "Strong" Agnosticism (i.e. "I don't know if there is a God or not, and neither can anyone else know if there is a God or not") does have an epistemic burden.

Well, they can just quote some relevant scripture and the burden would be done, no?

Right.

I have nothing wrong with a person if they are an atheist or a believer in God unless they are terrible person of course, but I find it funny that an atheist can admit that the universe is so so big like everyone knows it is, but then they try to use this human understanding for the case of there not being a higher power. I dont think you are a dumb person at all if you are an atheist, it is just a difference of opinions.

For example....how do we know what the year 4500 will be like? What if God is a person from the future where 9.2 billion people found a way to live forever through technology, and he and his team now have to find a way to prevent that because 9.2 billion people living forever in the universe might not be sustainable. He might have to find ways to reincarnate us through wormholes.

Like my point is we all have no fing idea. The universe is so big and there are 8 billion people on Earth. 8 billion people is alot of people, and I think it justifies the nature of a higher power.

Something can't come from nothing. It's a logical impossibility, like A and ~A simultaneously.

Why is this even debated, and how has this thread reached this many posts? Lol

A snippet from the description of the book by Professor Lawrence Krauss titled A Universe from Nothing:

The staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories are all described accessibly in A Universe from Nothing, and they suggest that not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing.

Of course, "something from nothing" is unremittingly stupid. But Krauss does a classic "bait-and-switch" midway through the book: he re-defines "nothing" so it can include something.

About the concept of something coming from nothing .
U know in math , nothing being represented by 0 is a number .

Or in other words if nothing is infinity, then at 1 point , infinity includes everything , even something .
That is how big Infiniti is .
It’s a circle .

Now why should I act in a good way without the need of a gods ?
If we’re stuck in an infinite loop , mind as well do the best good u can because it will eventually bite u in as$ .
Better, simpler and easier to make the world a bette place for yourself , everyone and anything surrounding you .
U know the concept of don’t do to other what Uou don’t want yourself to be done to ?


And for Linda , the problem of atheist isn’t about higher power or w.e existing or not .
I mean human are the higher power on earth , probably ants seeing human as deities ourself in their own « world reality ».
So imagining for atheist higher power isn’t difficult .
I mean aliens are much more plausible then god itself just by using probabilistic maths .

The problem for atheist imo is the belief in the gods describe by religions with all in each of them having different insignificant rules that if not obey , means eternal damnation.
It’s so childish (like Santa Claus’s for kids) but probably been pretty efficient and maybe needed for big population without much knowledge at all about how things work .
(Praying for good weather for example ?) .

And even then , I do not adhere because of a higher power is more powerful then us , it necessarily means we are obligated to follow their rules just because they are more advanced ….
Slavery been ban u know ……
And the worst is , so many gods died already but now we should had the right one right now because every other time before it wasn’t ?

I need a Tylenol(TM).

Good night!

Forget all of this for a moment. It's not relevant to the topic of something from nothing.

...Infinity is not nothing. It's not something.

Infinity is the concept of everything.

Zero is a symbol for concept of nothing, but nothing in mathematics has specific functions in addition and subtracted that are rooted in its axiomatization (ZF set theoretic). Outside of number representations and how zero functions within the field axioms, it has no greater meaning.

In reality nothing doesn't exist (sorry, mathematical idealists, but numbers don't exist as real entities, and so 0 isn't somewhere out there), quite simply because something already exists. If everything ceases to exist, then we have nothingness. It's just that simple.

So nothing never existed to begin with ?
So nothing shall never exist afterwards then that ?

No.

There wasn't ever nothing. You will always have to appeal to something. "God," "quantum foam," "membranes," "other universes." Take your pick.

I read a few posts.

Seems like you guys are arguing over paradox stuff that has no answer.

Like the idea the universe is infinite makes no sense. It never ends?
But then the idea it ends makes no sense either. Like a wall at the end,
but something must be on the other side.

The idea of completely nothing makes no sense.

Just another paradox.

One mistake many seem to make when tackling this problem is that it requires an insane amount of hubris and delusion to state blindly that ''something can't come from nothing''. We know that certain laws govern the world in which we live, where in order to have B you need to have A. That's logical, but bear in mind you can't extrapolate those laws, true for a minuscule fraction of the universe, to the rest of it. We ignore the nature of the universe at a big scale, hence why causality can't be extrapolated to its totality; we really don't know enough to claim that ''something can't come from nothing'', even if it seems to be the pattern everywhere we look at. We just know too little to make statements about the universe in otological terms. A good example is the black swan: just because every swan you see is white it doesn't mean black swans don't exist; same principle applies to causality.

Our observable universe is 93 billion light-years in diameter.

Obviously, a God beyond our comprehension created it all.

The stars, water, mountains, grass, soil, the sun, the moon, gravity, night, day, our crust and mammals, all working in perfect symmetry, unable to survive without one another.

Why do you want to live? Why do you want to pass on your DNA? Why do you laugh? Why does your heart and liver continue to work on your behalf, when it gets nothing in return?

It's all way to extraordinary, to have happened by some freak accident.

Only a dumb ass, would think otherwise.

jajajajaajajajajajajjajaajajaja. Even if we were the result of some rather creative entity that alone wouldn't mean that entity is the one described in the Bible, whose features we know: omniscient and so on. Whether we were created or not doesn't render the concept of hell any less stupid.

How is it obvious that “a god beyond our comprehension” created everything? Presumably such a god would have to be more complex than the universe he/she/it created. Ok, all well and good, but how do you explain the existence of a “god beyond our comprehension”? Is it more likely that our universe, which can be explained in large degree by a certain set of physical symmetries and seems to be fairly comprehensible arose from natural processes or is it more likely that a god that is totally incomprehensible and whose existence cannot be explained by some set of physical properties somehow arose spontaneously (not to mention WITHOUT the benefit of the existence of the fields, matter and energy that make up our universe)?

Given the set of physical symmetries that the universe possesses, there are plenty of ways that self organization of complex structures could occur naturally. The straw man you add to the mix is that these must occur via random processes. By the very nature of the universe, the processes occurring within it are NOT random. Two blobs of matter do not, for example, sometimes repel each other, sometimes attract one another, and sometimes have absolutely no interaction. They always attract; it’s not random. Further the strength of their attraction is likewise not random - it is dependent only on the masses of the blobs and the distance seperating them. “So what”?, you might ask. Well, that nonrandom interaction (more widely known as gravity) combined with other well understood nonrandom interactions (electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force), are sufficient to explain most of what you seem to think requires “a god beyond our comprehension” to explain.

The origin of quarks can be explained by the details of the inflationary period in the early universe. Interaction of these quarks can explain the formation of protons and neutrons, leading to the formation of the primal hydrogen and helium (plus a tiny amount of lithium) that was the earliest atomic matter in the universe. Gravity, plus the strong and electromagnetic forces explain how these primal hydrogen atoms clumped themselves together to form giant aggregates, aggregates so large that the energy possessed by the hydrogen at their core got squeezed and heated enough that the protons fused to form helium and enormous amounts of energy- ie stars were born. Further fusion reactions in these primal stars formed heavier elements, ones needed to form planets and eventually life.


None of it is random, and it is all perfectly comprehensible. We may not know every single detail, but the general picture is well understood. If you want to cling to a “god of the gaps” deity to explain all the missing details, that’s your prerogative, but you will be believing in an ever-shrinking god as our scientific understanding of the universe increases.

I don’t understand those that believe in a god , think it’s impossible they have gods higher then the one they believe in ?

How they are certain it stop at the god they think exist ?

I’m God.

And how the F do they get to their specific god in the first place?? And this reveals the absurdity of their position: it's always just an embarrassed, "Well, you know, of course, it's the one dominant in my culture." A presupposition, a bias, a taken for granted thing. A "look at the trees it must be Jesus" type of thing.

You can't see the wind. Where did it come from? Where is it going? But you can feel it. You know that it's there.

It's the same thing with the spirit. You can't see it, but you can feel it within a person. It's responsible for joy, anger, hate and love. Did the Big Bang create sorrow and happiness?

So where did the spirit come from? You know that it's there. And where is it ultimately going?