If there was nothing before God created the universe then how do you explain this?

[flexy]

"If there was nothing before [Yeah, who or what?] created the universe"

That there "was nothing" "before" the Big Bang is just ONE assumption, based on the very likely incorrect assumption there was only ONE Big Bang and before the BB was "nothing".

However, this idea is already very outdated. (Just by coincidence I am reading some book currently where exactly this, ie. new and current cosmological models etc. are talked about).

What we can rather safely assume is indeed that there WAS a Big Bang, from the fact that space itself expands and that we can measure background radiation. There is nothing which would speak against a BB and scientific models and observations confirm it.

However, where it gets interesting is many theories/models what actually caused the BB. Check into "quantum fluctuations of the vacuum", inflation...and new theories like the M theory. Means multiple universes that may exist in "different dimensions", universes where each Universe exists on a so-called branes. Such universes could at some point collide and where they do they can create a Big Bang, ie. it is conceivable and actually seriuosly debated that one universe can be "created" out from on another.

It is also conceivable that there are infinite universes "in different dimensions" alongside ours, infinite universes which like ours are constantly born, evolving, dying etc. Universes may exist with entirely different physical laws as compared to ours, universes where matter never developed etc..etc.

This is not silly "new age" talk, those are some of the latest cosmological models.

Interestingly, from the book I am reading right now, John Gribbin actually states an astonishing thing, although extremely speculative. (Which is rare for him, his books are usually keeping it scientific). He says it may be possible/likely that we, in hundred years, may be technologically capable to create an universe. Pretty mind blowing. He also speculates then in the same paragraph it may well be that this (our) universe was created "as an experiment" by some intelligence in another universe. Of course this is extremely speculative but it is "thinkable", should we at some point be able "to create an universe". If this would be possible, of course "someone" could indeed have "made" the universe, or any universe for that matter.

** Also, let me recap, or at least try...

Quantum fluctuation and then an universe created "out of nothing" would mean exactly that: That it's in theory possible that a universe is created "out of nothing", out of pure "randomness", no intention or aim, whatever, simply because of a quantum fluctuation. In other words: It would be "normal" that universes "just like that" on occasion (or possibly: all the time) pop into existence, and it would not need a guy with a long beard to do so.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I insist anyone asking this question first to demonstrate that nothing can exist in order to receive a meaningful answer.

 

[Mike64]

What kind of idiot higher power makes you breathe and eat out of the same hole?

One with a sense of humor, that's easily amused?/ Imnsho, while that of course wouldn't explain everything, it would go a lot further than pretty much any existing religion's scripture.

 

[agent00f]

Interestingly, from the book I am reading right now, John Gribbin actually states an astonishing thing, although extremely speculative. (Which is rare for him, his books are usually keeping it scientific). He says it may be possible/likely that we, in hundred years, may be technologically capable to create an universe. Pretty mind blowing. He also speculates then in the same paragraph it may well be that this (our) universe was created "as an experiment" by some intelligence in another universe. Of course this is extremely speculative but it is "thinkable", should we at some point be able "to create an universe". If this would be possible, of course "someone" could indeed have "made" the universe, or any universe for that matter.

** Also, let me recap, or at least try...

The idea of some external puppetmaster is nothing new, the allegory of the cave for example from bc times. Seems this Gribbin wants to be the philosopher from the tale.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I insist anyone asking this question first to demonstrate that nothing can exist in order to receive a meaningful answer.

Nothing is the absence of something that you care about.

I give you most of the internet.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

....the absence of something that you care about.

Absences do not exist outside of our minds.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Absences do not exist outside of our minds.

Good point; I don't care about anything outside of my mind (or which might never affect my mind in any way).

In this way you have now proven that nothingness exists epistemologically... was your point that physically there's no such thing as nothing?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Good point; I don't care about anything outside of my mind (or which might never affect my mind in any way).

In this way you have now proven that nothingness exists epistemologically...

I would say that "nothingness" exists abstractly, or even more directly that "nothingness" is an abstraction. Epistemologically, abstractions are a priori knowledge, which isn't meaningless, but is largely trivial, in my opinion.

was your point that physically there's no such thing as nothing?

More or less, although -- pedant that I am -- I'd substitute "externally" for "physically." In cases like this the idea of nothing existing is used to demand an explanation to the beginning of the (external, or if you prefer, physical) world.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I would say that "nothingness" exists abstractly, or even more directly that "nothingness" is an abstraction. Epistemologically, abstractions are a priori knowledge, which isn't meaningless, but is largely trivial, in my opinion.


More or less, although -- pedant that I am -- I'd substitute "externally" for "physically." In cases like this the idea of nothing existing is used to demand an explanation to the beginning of the (external, or if you prefer, physical) world.

Žižek gets at an interesting point about this in his book "less than nothing".
Here's a conversation with him covering many of the ideas presented:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvWkWYHmMxg

 

[interchange]

Absolute nothingness and absolute infiniteness are things our minds are incapable of truly comprehending. I think the most appealing ideas about the universe are something of a time loop. Of course I have no way to comprehend why is there something instead of nothing.

The interesting question is, if God is the answer, how does God answer the question of why he exists at all?

 

[deustroop]

I agree that the first question is why is there something rather than nothing ? The best answer appears to rest within the options of 1) a god or 2) random fluctuations.

I choose number 2. I cannot accept that any being, of any nature, was capable of planning or executing this world with its multitude of nature and complexity of life forms.Give me a slightly plausible explanation--evolution-- over an impossibility , that of a being that did it all, and then walked away !

So yeah, random fluctuation. I think RF is analogous to an artist, who can create something out of nothing. And yeah, the resulting life we have is a unity of the given and the construed.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I agree that the first question is why is there something rather than nothing ?

No. You first need to substantiate your question's implicit supposition that there shouldn't be something. Why shouldn't something exist?

 

[interchange]

No. You first need to substantiate your question's implicit supposition that there shouldn't be something. Why shouldn't something exist?

That was my question and not his. Why are you judging that there is such an implicit supposition?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That was my question and not his. Why are you judging that there is such an implicit supposition?

The question is senseless otherwise. If we don't suppose that there should not be something, then there is no explanation required. We can agree by direct experience that "something exists" is a fact. Why shouldn't something exist? If you cannot explain why or how it could not be the case that something exists, then we do not need to explain why it does exist.

 

[interchange]

The question is senseless otherwise. If we don't suppose that there should not be something, then there is no explanation required. We can agree by direct experience that "something exists" is a fact. Why shouldn't something exist? If you cannot explain why or how it could not be the case that something exists, then we do not need to explain why it does exist.

I agree that something exists.

I find it interesting to ask why.

We do not need to explain it. We can't anyway.

I still find it interesting to ask why.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I find it interesting to ask why.

What's interesting about it? If there's no reason why there shouldn't be something, then what do you stand to learn by proceeding with your inquiry?

 

[deustroop]

What's interesting about it? If there's no reason why there shouldn't be something, then what do you stand to learn by proceeding with your inquiry?

One should avoid double negatives as they suggest a confusion somewhere .

Secondly, you are advancing a position which takes life (the given we encounter) on faith and therefore, unknowingly perhaps, defend that assumption by arguing that the only advance in knowledge is to ask why not ? Without such faith though one would rather say first, intellectually trying to construe the obvious, "why".

Ironically your position is undermined substantially by the very quotation in your signature.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

One should avoid double negatives as they suggest a confusion somewhere .

I choose my wording quite deliberately. I'm not confused.

Secondly, you are advancing a position which takes life (the given we encounter) on faith

Who do you think is talking about life? It is not me, I assure you, and if you think that i am, that is a mistake on your part.

Secondly, if it is given that "we both encounter" something, then it is given that I'm not taking its existence on faith.

and therefore, unknowingly perhaps, defend that assumption by arguing that the only advance in knowledge is to ask why not ? Without such faith though one would rather say first, intellectually trying to construe the obvious, "why".

Ironically your position is undermined substantially by the very quotation in your signature.

Review the premises of your arguments, and then reformulate.

 

[MongGrel]

The FSM initated life in the universe, of course.

Someday everyone will be touched by his noodley presence.

He even comes with a money back guarantee if you want to go back to your previous deity.

Arrrrrrrr.

Ramen.

 

[deustroop]

.
I'm not confused.

It is not me,

I'm not taking its existence on faith.

Being defensive is not a position its a pathology.

 

[interchange]

What's interesting about it? If there's no reason why there shouldn't be something, then what do you stand to learn by proceeding with your inquiry?

I cannot say anything more than I find it interesting.

If your position is that the question holds no interest, how do you reconcile your interest in attacking it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Being defensive is not a position its a pathology.

I love it: falsely characterize my argument and then call out my correcting you as "defensive."

I think we're done here.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I cannot say anything more than I find it interesting.

Ok then. Have fun with that.

If your position is that the question holds no interest, how do you reconcile your interest in attacking it?

I'm interested in helping people make productive use of their curiosity. The catch is that they have to want that in the first place.

 

[interchange]

I'm interested in helping people make productive use of their curiosity. The catch is that they have to want that in the first place.

You are rendering many judgments about internal motivations.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are rendering many judgments about internal motivations.

Indeed I am.