Is it possible for nothing to exist?

Question

The idea of a creation presupposes that a state of 'nothing exists' must be possible, in order for a creator to have had the role of creating something from nothing. However, fundamental physics suggests that nothingness is not a state which can exist, in which case a creator cannot possibly exist either.

What do you think?

blowry007: As I understand it, quantum mechanics says that uncaused events are happening all the time - the 'quantum vacuum' is a roiling sea of quantum fluctuations in which particle pairs come into existence uncaused and (usually) annihilate each other almost instantly. So, an uncaused cause is not only consistent with physics, it's a necessary *part* of physics. If I understand correctly...

It's all about the universe being probabilistic rather than deterministic.

luvwinz: I don't agree with your answer but it made me smile and I admire your eloquence :-)

Answer 1

It is questions like this that bring the 'Argument From Incredulity' to the fore: "I cannot conceive of how this might have come to be; therefore, god did it." I see that many of the answers invoke it. It is not an answer... it is merely a vain attempt to create the ILLUSION of knowledge, in the place of ignorance.

For one thing, within our universe, we really can't say that there is 'nothingness'... and even where we might 'perceive' nothingness, matter is popping in and out of existence all the time, at the quantum scale.

Further, it does not seem appropriate to wonder whether 'nothingness' exists since nothingness implies nonexistence. Can nonexistence 'exist'. Kind of paradoxical, don't you think?

BUT... for those that say that the universe cannot have come from nothing, unless it was created by some kind of supreme being... the 'energy balance' of the universe is calculated to be 'zero'... so it could be OK in that regard.

Also... if the universe popped into existance like particles/antiparticles pop into existence within our own universe (in conjunction with an 'anti-universe'), it might be OK if the balance is maintained.

Then, of course, we have the modern ideas which involve collisions between higher-dimensional 'branes' (membranes). (Look up Sue Randall.)

The point is that there are a multiplicity of credible scenarios (more than I have hit upon) which could account for the origins of the universe WITHOUT having to invoke some kind of eternal, non-created supernatural entity as a creator. Those scenarios provide a coherent cognitive framework that are mathematically consistent with the present observed facts of our universe, and it's past, which we are able to observe directly.

Applying Occam's Razor to the potential scenarios, God is the most uncredible and unlikely option, and is thus the first one to get chopped.

Answer 2

Don't confuse the existence within space and time with that which is outside of space and time. Being finite comes with the danger of making assumptions based on that which is empirical to the senses within finite existence and discounting anything that transcends the limits of this finite domain. Can that which begins to exist demand understanding from that which causes it to be? Or can the creature arrogantly declare itself Lord over its creator?
Physics is the study and understanding of the principles and processes inherent within the physical universe, hence the term "physics", you cannot apply the laws of physics to explain that which is outside of its rule.
The uniform background radiation throughout the cosmos can be traced back to what has been described as "Planck" time which is 1/10th to the 40th power of a second. Einstein correctly demonstrated that in his theory of relativity a creation event occurred which someone labeled as the "Big Bang"
In "Planck" time the laws of physics fall apart and cannot explain events prior to their developement. Just like science cannot explain that which it cannot reproduce in its investigative analysis.
Example? Science cannot prove empirically that I fetched the paper from the porch this morning. It can examine the available evidence and then make a guess as to what would appear to be the best possible conclusion.
Currently the best possible explanation for the reality of the physical universe points to a reality that those who champion naturalism at all costs refuse to accept.
This leaves us at a stalemate does it not?
If you bring up questions which have answers that you reject then what is the point of asking questions at all?
Then there is always the idea that you could demonstrate for us with scientific investigation how it is that anything began to be?
However you cannot use that which already exists...get the point?
Science is to know...by the rules that govern that which is, and not by that which is not...so it seems, science cannot even create itself let alone that which it refuses by its own limits to acknowledge or understand.
This nothingness you speak of? Does it transcend itself? If it is classified as such do you see the absurdity of your inquiery?
That which begins to be must have an adequate cause.
The evidence before you demonstrates that something now is. How then can you conclude that there was a time when nothing was? That which began that which now is, but at one time was not, is not intrinsic to itself. Nothing creates itself. That which begins all transcends all and it has no beginning, but is the first and eternal uncaused cause.

What do you think?

Answer 3

If a state of nothing can't exist, then were did the first something come from? If it came from somewhere, where did that something originate? I've had this discussion many times. If the atom and the particles in atoms are the smallest, most basic building block of existance, then where did they come from. I understand that everything is made up of compounds and minerals and elements, but where did they come from. Some say they were floating in space, but were they before they were floating. And, for that matter, where did space come from and what is beyond it? I think this is a concept that we're not meant to worry about too much. Frankly, it hurts my head to do so. I also think it's a great argument for a creator.

I believe in God. Where He came from and how are none of my business. Maybe He'll tell me some day. He made me and this world and keeps it in miraculous balance every moment. He put chemicals in my eyes so that I could see the beauty of the world and chemicals in my brain so that I can ponder it all until it starts to hurt.

Answer 4

We really don't know much about this universe before the Big Bang. We don't know what rules would apply back then or not. In this universe, there appears to be no nothingness. Heizenburg's Uncertainty principle says that you can't know the exact energy level of any location. A point where there is nothing has a zero energy level. The law of thermodynamics tends to prohibit zero energy existing, too.

However, we don't know if that holds true outside of this universe we know. Causality, itself, might not apply outside of this universe.

In any case, making up gods and such as "Creators" doesn't really further our knowledge or really answer anything. For now, it is best to just say "We don't know".

Answer 5

Yes. The Greek words "ex nilo" is applied to Creation and means "out of nothing". In our finite minds it is impossible for us to understand creating something out of nothing, but how else can you explain Creation. The Big Bang theory does not explore this possibility, but where did the matter come from to produce the Big Bang? Obviously it had to be created by a supreme being ex nilo---out of nothing. I do not hold with the Big Bang theory, because it suggest order out of chaos, and the is nothing chaotic about God. I also do prescribe to the notion that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour days. The universe was established in six stages, and the order that the Bible lists these stages is logical with man being the last stage. Prior to the fall of man in the garden of Eden, time was of no concern---time is a result of the fall, for prior to the fall man was immortal; therefore, it is possible that the creation process took the four and one-half billion years that scientist claim that it did, and that Adam and Eve spent more than one million years in the garden of Eden. Use the speed of light as a guide, scientist have estimated that the universe could be more than 15 billion years old. Like I said, prior to man's fall, time, for all practical purposes, did not exist as an influential element because all was immortal, including Creation. Read Romans Chapter 8. Jesus loves you.

Answer 6

With this equation, matter would not have existed either if there was 'nothing' before the big bang, therefore nothing exists now. There was obviously 'something' otherwise we would not be here talking about it. Whether you suscribe to the big bang theory or to the belief of God, 'something' was there somewhere in the dark at the beginning (or the end, depending on how you view it) Like the number zero, neither positive or negative, all things cross it to go the other direction, but it remains as it is, and it is the beginning and the end.

Answer 7

Err, ok if you are going to mix up science and faith (not a good mix btw)
Physics is quite fond of something from nothing, provided you make an anti-something at the same time.

Now, why do I say dont mix them. If you do, then you are restricting your creator the the bounds of thier creation, there is nothing anywhere to say that god is bound by physics.
While I'm being picky, according to the bible, before creation, there wasnt nothing, there was god

Answer 8

I think that you are looking at it from the point of view of a being in a physical reality.

For anything physical to exist there are certain fundamental requirements. Any physical object first needs a space to exist within, and a particular place within that space to exist at. These fundamental needs of a physical object are not requirements of spirit.

God is a spirit, and sees neither space to exist within nor a place within the space to exist at is being necessary at all. This is an understandable misassumption to have due to the requirements that you labor under as a physical being.

Love and blessings
don

Answer 9

The idea of evolution as a result of the Big Bang supposes that there was an uncaused cause, which fundamental physics suggests is impossible. I guess you have yourself a bit of a paradox, eh?

May God bless and keep you.

Answer 10

I rather have self assurance that it rather is feasible. very practically each and every little bit of information we've comes from adventure wherein we subjectively stumble on. Being as how we are subjectively perceiving those stories which grant us information with reference to the international we are residing in then it rather is clever that our perception deceives us in a fashion that the international as all of us are conscious of it, does not exist... i think that some thing exists, that being the ability that drives us to easily question those issues we are speaking approximately, yet what we evaluate actuality is in basic terms our very own improper perception. super question!