At Mind Matters News: How can the universe have arisen from nothing?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 12, 2021

Cosmology, Logic and Reason, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We are asked to examine the problem logically:

Science writer Prudence Louise offers some realism on the topic:

The question of cosmic origins is a perennially popular question, but most theists think the answer has been known for thousands of years. God is the ultimate cause of the cosmos. While there’s room to disagree with that theistic conclusion, there are rational limits on the valid ways to reject it.
None of the outcomes of rejecting God are appealing. They’re the sort of explanatory gaps we reluctantly accept in the wider context of our philosophical commitments.
Prudence Louise, “Universes from Nothing?: Scientific euphemisms and equivocations” at Medium (November 21, 2021) (November 21, 2021)

Louise runs through a number of ideas that sound popular in the lunchroom but don’t stand the test of careful thought. Just for example, “one day science will answer the question of why the universe exists.” But that’s not what science does. Generally speaking, science answers “how” questions, not “why” questions. Science can tell us a lot about how things work. But to ask why things work is a matter for philosophy, not science.

Louise is not a fan of Lawrence Krauss’s 2013 book, A Universe from Nothing:

More here.

Takehome: It turns out that the claim that everything just happened to come from nothing is fraught with problems.

You may also wish to read: Why physicalism is failing as the accepted approach to science. The argument that everything in nature can be reduced to physics was killed by the philosophical Zombie, as Prudence Louise explains. Physicalism which depends on a mechanistic view of the universe, was challenged by observer-dependent quantum mechanics. Then the Zombie started walking…

Comments

Munsell is a color chart, used mainly for checking soil samples.
What is the difference between trowels preferred by American archaeologists versus those preferred by English archaeologists?
The shape
What is a small piece of pottery called?
Shard
What is the difference between a pebble, a stone and a rock?
Size, although stone and rock are interchangeable. They are all rocks.
What is a krotovina?
Filled in animal burrow
What is FCR?
Fire cracked rock
What’s in a midden?
Refuse Again, none of this has anything to do with what we are discussing. It's as if you are proud to be an infant.ET_{December 18, 2021
December
12
Dec
18
18
2021
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Once I said we know who built Stonehenge and you thought I meant a particular person instead of a known group.
Who refers to a particular person.
Another time I asked you what is the first thing you do with a stone you think might have been used as a hand axe and you got that wrong as well.
Liar. I said you examine it for marks that would be there is it was a hand axe. Not one of your childish challenges even addresses what we are talking about. Obviously you have serious issues. Again- how can anyone say anything about the who, how, why without studying the design and all relevant evidence? You are one desperate ass, and it shows.ET_{December 18, 2021
December
12
Dec
18
18
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Oh good, got blocked, temporarily I hope, from another thread: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/flies-do-vector-math/#comment-742767 Who is actually running this site? And why can I post to some threads but not others? What is going on?JVL_{December 17, 2021
December
12
Dec
17
17
2021
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

ET: What is a krotovina? What is FCR? What's in a midden? I know you can look all those up but the point is that anyone familiar with archaeology already knows the answers. There's a difference between thinking you know because you read a couple of books and actually doing the work in the field and interpreting it.JVL_{December 17, 2021
December
12
Dec
17
17
2021
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

ET: Liar. You have never demonstrated I was wrong about anything with respect to archaeology. I can think of two times at least. Once I said we know who built Stonehenge and you thought I meant a particular person instead of a known group. Another time I asked you what is the first thing you do with a stone you think might have been used as a hand axe and you got that wrong as well. Do you know what a Munsell is? What is the difference between trowels preferred by American archaeologists versus those preferred by English archaeologists? What is a small piece of pottery called? What is the difference between a pebble, a stone and a rock?JVL_{December 17, 2021
December
12
Dec
17
17
2021
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Please tell me how archaeologists can say something about the who, how, why or when without studying the design and all relevant evidence. JVL
When I’ve done so in the past you just ignore or deny my comments.
Liar. You have never demonstrated I was wrong about anything with respect to archaeology. You are a pathetic loser. You are sick and in need of help.ET_{December 17, 2021
December
12
Dec
17
17
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Querius @ 42, Even the Easter Bunny has a name and supposedly has many characteristics (looks like a rabbit, et al). And it takes human beings to think of it before it even becomes imaginary. I'm describing what hypothetically could have been the case, namely that absolutely nothing existed. This Nothing has no properties, no potential, no future, no causality, etc. For any positive property you can think of, true Nothingness doesn't have it. It is the antithesis of existence of every kind. Nothing preceded it, and nothing follows it. It's not even eternal, because it doesn't exist in time, because time wouldn't exist either. Absolute nothingness. This is not the case of course, but it is the only state of affairs that would require no information to describe. (I have [in a sense] been describing it using information, but only in the sense of specifying what can't be said about it. I.e., I'm describing it by contrasting it with everything of this realm, which does have properties, etc.) So from this viewpoint, absolute Nothingness is the simplest state of affairs that could have obtained.EDTA_{December 16, 2021
December
12
Dec
16
16
2021
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

ET: Please tell me how archaeologists can say something about the who, how, why or when without studying the design and all relevant evidence. When I've done so in the past you just ignore or deny my comments. So I shan't bother. Your opinion is unfalsifiable. Profiling Interesting answer. Very interesting answer. A lot of that is psychological. I wonder if that applies to the 'creator' of the universe?JVL_{December 16, 2021
December
12
Dec
16
16
2021
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

"Nothing comes from nothing... nothing ever could" Chapter. Verse. https://youtu.be/UetJAFogqE4?t=55 --Ramram_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

It's helpful to use an example of "nothing" or "non-existence" by an actual example: I prefer using . . . the EASTER BUNNY! The Easter Bunny has no constraints and thus is supposedly fully capable to creating the universe or even multiple universes, right? Lawrence Krauss would tell us that the one thing the Easter Bunny needs is quantum gravity. Then, the Easter Bunny could create space-time, mass-energy, and everything else. But how can quantum gravity exist without space-time? Can one measure either the Easter Bunny (in nano-eggs?) or quantum gravity (N/kg)? -QQuerius_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

JVL:
And, as usual, you’re wrong about actual archaeology.
So you keep saying and yet you have never supported that claim. And that is very telling. Please tell me how archaeologists can say something about the who, how, why or when without studying the design and all relevant evidence. Or admit that you are just a desperate loser.
And what branch of science would explore those topics?
ProfilingET_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

ET: As I have been telling you for years- the ONLY possible way to answer any questions about the who, how, why or when, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. That is how it is done in archaeology. Ask your wife. That is also how it’s done in forensics. And what branch of science would explore those topics? One that already exists or a new one? And, as usual, you're wrong about actual archaeology. You sound like you've read too many Erich von Daniken and Graham Hancock books.JVL_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

As I have been telling you for years- the ONLY possible way to answer any questions about the who, how, why or when, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. That is how it is done in archaeology. Ask your wife. That is also how it’s done in forensics.ET_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Zweston: JVL continues by tripling down on his theology questions Who said they were theological questions? what is your worldview? Nothing to do with the question.JVL_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

ET: How do we ask the designers of Stonehenge why they built it? Unfortunately that culture left no written records. Some inferences have been made based on positioning with respect to celestial events (that sort of thing being fairly common in other cultures and being of obvious interest). The methods of construction don't help us EXCEPT that they clearly took a lot of participation which means it must have been seen as a valuable and worthy effort. So, yeah, we'll never know for sure. They are beyond ID. I just said ID forces us to ask them. Then someone will try to answer them. That’s how science goes. Yup, so what branch of science would try to answer those questions? Is someone already trying to answer those questions?JVL_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

EDTA: And of course all the above rests on the design inference to a creator. Yes indeed! Anyway, thanks for having a go!JVL_{December 15, 2021
December
12
Dec
15
15
2021
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

From the sort of true nothingness I'm envisioning, nothing can come. So if someone else's reasoning results in something coming from nothing, their conception of nothingness is not the same as mine.EDTA_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Pater @ 32, There wouldn't be any constraints, and nothing to constrain. True nothingness would mean no action and no potential for action. So nothing can or will happen. Potential for action is a thing. No contradiction yet with total nothingness...EDTA_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

JVL continues by tripling down on his theology questions... what is your worldview?zweston_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

#31 EDTA says ".... I don't yet see the contradiction". Because NOTHING not only means no matter and no energy, it also means NO RULES/NO CONSTRAINTS. When you have no constraints, ANYTHING can happen. As soon as something happens, you then have SOMETHING rather than NOTHING. That's why it's a contradiction.Pater Kimbridge_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

WJM @ 24, I'm curious why total nothingness would be in the same category as a "square circle." It has always seemed to me that total nothingness is the only state of affairs that would require no explanation. The existence of something/anything would require explanation as to its particulars, why it took the form it did, why it has the properties it has, etc. For that reason nothingness has to be the simplest state. I realize that by itself doesn't mean it's not contradictory, but I don't yet see the contradiction.EDTA_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

How do we ask the designers of Stonehenge why they built it? JVL:
I thought you said all questions about the designer were beyond the scope of ID. So, what area of science would entertain those kinds of questions?
They are beyond ID. I just said ID forces us to ask them. Then someone will try to answer them. That's how science goes. As I have been telling you for years- the ONLY possible way to answer any questions about the who, how, why or when, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. That is how it is done in archaeology. Ask your wife. That is also how it's done in forensics.ET_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

JVL @ 26, >You are making a lot of assumptions,... Hmm...I'm trying to make good inferences to arrive at these things: - Creator being superior to us intellectualy and otherwise: comes from fact that we can't even understand ourselves, let alone create anything remotely as complex. - We might not be capable of understanding the reason(s) for our existence: follows from previous inference. - We might be able to understand a watered-down version of why we're here: inferred from observation that we understand a few things, so it might be possible to water a more complex explanation down enough for it to fit into our heads. And of course all the above rests on the design inference to a creator.EDTA_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

#16 Zweston says "When we put God on trial, all kinds of nonsense comes out." Yes. Yes it does.Pater Kimbridge_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Zweston: Are you a materialist? What does that have to do with the question? You effectively just underlined your previous comments. You want to get into the theological weeds while not acknowledging there is a creator. And when I say weeds, you want a comprehensive knowledge of “why” which “science” cannot begin to answer. It must bring you comfort to say “well, I don’t like that explanation, therefore God doesn’t exist…” You've made assumptions about my beliefs and motivations which are not correct. I really am curious as to why a powerful being would create a set of limiting rules which it is not subject to. Unless it was some kind of experiment or model. But that's just my own personal imagination limits, which I admit. Acknowledge the creator, then we can talk theology. If your epistemology is based on your ability to comprehensively understand something to the very depth of the reality, then I’d say you had better throw out 95% of the .0000001 percent of the world’s knowledge you have attained. What's wrong with asking a hypothetical question about a hypothetical creator? What kind of creator were you thinking of by the way? Again, just curious.JVL_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

EDTA: While we can certainly ask why the universe was created, if the creator is superior to us intellectually and in other ways, we have to realize that we may not know the answer. We might not even be capable of comprehending the true reason(s). We might be able to understand a watered-down version, but we will have trouble even being certain that we have even partially grasped it. This is the reality of being the inferior beings in the matter. Nothing abnormal or unexpected about this situation from my perspective. You are making a lot of assumptions, not that I disagree with them. But they are just assumptions. I happy just saying: we don't know.JVL_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

ET: You would have to ask the designer. Okay. How would I do that? The evidence says this is a universe designed for scientific discovery. Perhaps an ethereal being wanted to know if physical beings could attain enlightenment. Perhaps. It seems like a interesting guess. Makes us sound like some kind of experiment but that's okay with me. But thank you for once again showing there are open research questions that ID forces us to ask I thought you said all questions about the designer were beyond the scope of ID. So, what area of science would entertain those kinds of questions?JVL_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Pater said:
Why do we assume that “nothing” is the default condition, and that it’s “something” that requires explaining? Maybe it’s just the opposite.
Bingo. "Nothing" cannot exist. It's a logical contradiction along the lines of "square circle." Existence isn't just the default condition, it is the necessary condition because there's no such thing as "nothing."William J Murray_{December 14, 2021
December
12
Dec
14
14
2021
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

Thank you for your comments, BA77. I have watched Dr. Neal's video on her NDE and found it quite fascinating. I do believe that we have some inklings of what God is trying to do, from the Bible for instance. But our detractors want the WHOLE picture, explained in full at our level, and we simply cannot expect that.EDTA_{December 13, 2021
December
12
Dec
13
13
2021
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

@JVL.... Are you a materialist? Again, you just completely dodge the OP content to ask "why?" You effectively just underlined your previous comments. You want to get into the theological weeds while not acknowledging there is a creator. And when I say weeds, you want a comprehensive knowledge of "why" which "science" cannot begin to answer. It must bring you comfort to say "well, I don't like that explanation, therefore God doesn't exist..." Acknowledge the creator, then we can talk theology. If your epistemology is based on your ability to comprehensively understand something to the very depth of the reality, then I'd say you had better throw out 95% of the .0000001 percent of the world's knowledge you have attained.zweston_{December 13, 2021
December
12
Dec
13
13
2021
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply