You may be interested in Harrison Saunders’ essay “5 Steps to Eternity,” who believes “we may now be able to provide an entirely scientific and rational answer” to the question of why there is something rather than nothing:
In the ongoing battle between science and religion, the forces of rationalism have been hampered by an 800-lb gorilla firmly planted in its corner. The question of why the universe exists at all has variously been called “the first of all questions” and the “Primordial Existential Question.” It has been phrased by both Leibniz and Heidegger as “Why is there something rather than nothing?” while Steven Hawking wonders, “Why does the Universe bother to exist?” Religion triumphantly proclaims the answer: because God the Prime Creator made it all. Unable to come up with a counter argument, Rationalists have just shrugged and meekly suggested that the answer may be outside the realm of science.
As long as theism provides the only solution, it will continue to dominate debate and sway the public mind on the question of “creation.” However, I believe we may now be able to provide an entirely scientific and rational answer to this most profound of questions. The article below exposes how the “God answer” falls short and provides a 5-step analysis of how an eternal universe – with no beginning or end – can be understood through application of contemporary science. This revelation describes a universe that “bothers to exist” on its own terms, effectively eliminating the need for God as Prime Creator.
Interesting… I will read the essay.
By the way, I don’t agree that there is not counter argument against God as prime creator.
Some of them could be:
1.- The answer God doesn’t solve the problem, as now we have to ask why is there a God and what created it, because “nothing comes from nothing”
2.- They are speaking as if non-existence would require some kind of effort. But what if it is the other way? What if existence is the state “by defect” of space and time?
3.- A similar answer to that one of the antropic principle: if there would not be an universe, then we wouldn’t be here asking why it exists
“As long as theism provides the only solution”
That’s in some way a circular reasoning: God was created to explain what we couldn’t understand -for example, the creation of the universe- so when there is something we cannot understand, it is a proof of the existence of God?
First!?
2.- They are speaking as if non-existence would require some kind of effort. But what if it is the other way? What if existence is the state “by defect” of space and time?
I dunno. The continuing expansion of the universe seems to indicate that non-existence precedes existence. Or another way of putting it is that empty space seems pre-existent to matter. If the universe (or rather, the matter in it) is expanding, as scientist tell us it is, what is it expanding into?
Universe is expanding, or getting bigger, but it’s not embedded in “anywhere”. There is not an empty “space” in wich the universe is growing, as time and space couldn’t exist outside the universe itself
- well, as far as we know, of course
I disagree. If it’s is expanding it is expanding somewhere. If a universe is all there is and all there is is expanding additional wheres within to expand are constantly being created. The expansion of the universe is the creation of additional wheres that did not exist before.
should be “additional wheres within which to expand”
I shall attempt a metaphor!
Imagine a deflated balloon. Draw on this hunk of latex several dots with a marker and then measure the distances between them. Now inflate the balloon. The distances between the dots will all be larger. This is due to the rubber *itself* (the medium on which the dots are situated) stretching.
In the metaphor, the rubber is spacetime, and the dots are locations. In order for the universe to expand, all that has to happen is spacetime itself has to be stretched. It does not require it to expand into anywhere in order to observe the points moving further apart, as that is a consequence of the stretching itself.
“I shall attempt a metaphor!”
ZOMG
Did the part of this article where he mentioned time slowing as correlating to apparent acceleration bother you elemenope? He said that it’s possible that time started slower and is getting faster, which didn’t bother me, but then he said that time accelerating would make the universe appear to be accelerating. The problem is, I think he got it backwards. If the universe is traveling at a constant speed, then the distance traveled during one second near the ‘beginning’ of the universe would be much greater than the distance traveled during one second near the ‘end’ of the universe, because time is moving faster, and therefore that ‘one second’ is actually shorter (in distance) than the one from near the ‘beginning’ of the universe. That means it would apparently decelerate.
I could have this backwards or there could be some sort of weird relativistic factors I’m not taking into account, but it seems to me that his evidence actually contradicts what he’s arguing.
No, your analysis sounds correct to me, but then I’m not a physicist.
My favorite eye-rolling part was in his discussion of defining qualities when he attributed the notion of the compresence of opposites (not what he called it in the article) to an application of Einstein’s relativity, when the concept was actually first recorded by Plato.
The balloon metaphor is okay. Except that the balloon has a pre-prepared space into which to expand. The universe, outside of which space does not exist has no such pre-prepared space and therefore must create “emptiness” itself in order to expand. The expansion of the universe is actually the expansion of empty space which could be seen as creating the vacuum that draws matter away from itself thus causing the expansion of observed by scientists. And I might add it is expanding at an incredible rate, bringing into existence, as I said, vast amounts of empty spaces that previously did not even exist.
Think about it from the point-of-view of the dot on the balloon. From that perspective, the space is irrelevant. A one-dimensional dude chilling on the surface of the balloon would perceive the distances traversible on his universe to grow larger, even though the concept of space for the balloon to expand into would be insensible to him.
Of course, it is a metaphor, and the difficultly is any metaphor we employ from our own experience is going to involve expansion into some other space.
“From that perspective, the space is irrelevant.”
True, from any particular perspective its irrelevant. Just as it is irrelevant that the sun from our particular perspective appears to rise and set, we know that that’s an illusion. But surely the newly created vast swathes of space are of some consequence. Even if everything is the same, just farther apart. That farther-apartnest, it would seem to me, is significant in itself.
Also, the balloon analogy doesn’t address the problem I mentioned. The analogy is that the balloon can expand. In order to expand space has to already exist. So the analogy doesn’t really work for me.
JonJon,
Saunders said:
a) time slows down as gravity increases
b) time slowing down would appear to us the same as the universe accelerating its expansion.
Both statements are correct.
As for b, when we look into space, we look back in time. So, the further out and thus further back in time we look, the faster things will seem to move away from us (in every direction we look) if we apply our current, slower time. We’re seeing the universe as it was back then, which means we’re also really observing its speed of time as it was back then, but if we interpret this cosmological snapshot using a current, slower speed of time, we get the appearance of distances increasing with time (ie. acceleration) the further out we look.
I hope that makes sense.
Anyway, here’s a link to the scientific work which Saunders is likely referring to.
nomad,
Empty space is not created in an expanding universe. Rather, the existing space – which is not really empty as it has a non-zero energy (Zero-point energy) – is stretched.
The universe, being by definition absolutely self-contained, cannot interact with anything theoretically existing outside it, and so cannot expand into something. Also, although expansion in any other case is synonymous with an intrusion into a physical space, in the case of our universe, space (and thus distance) is entirely an attribute of our universe and doesn’t exist outside of it.
Or so the scientific consensus states. String theorists might disagree somewhat.
Well explained, trj.
According to Ty.
Ah, very good. I was afraid there was something I was missing in that explanation, because it was quite opposed to what he was actually saying.
I knew when I wrote it that I wasn’t explaining myself very well. Trying again…
You are imagining the universe expanding like a balloon, it grows and you see it growing from outside. That’s a pretty normal way to imagine that expansion. Well, there is not an “outside” of the universe from wich we can see it. It may not exist even “time” outside the universe, so anyway we couldn’t see it growing.
The space grows with the universe. Try to imagine that same balloon with lines printed on it like an excel sheet. The balloon don’t grow, but the squares are getting smaller, so that, if there were 3 lines between two points, now they are 4 lines away. Then 5, 6…
There is more “space” now, but the balloon didn’t need to grow
Help! Any phisicist out there? Is it a good analogy?
the problem is that, just like you can’t stand outside the universe to measure it, you can’t guarantee that your grid lines don’t change in size along with the size of the universe. (that isn’t really a problem with your analogy, just with the balloon analogy at all. I think its typically used to explain what red shift is, and it works for that…)
Wowowo be carefull here.
You logic is flawed in that you think with simplified human logic.
The universe does not care about human logic, the universe does not require something to expand into.The universe does not require a before time concept, it might be complely different.
The concept of before time is onmy because we humans are forced to live in the arrow of time, but the future and past are part of the universe. The universe des not require time and concepts of expand into something. But we humans are on some rollercoaster that follows a predefined path and although there is some randomizing in it, we can only stit back and hold on tight.
The concept of before time, before the universe created, expand into… only is an artifact of human logic because we cannot grasp reality. These artificially creatd concepts are as wrong as marking a proton red and a neutron white when you show a atom model in a book.
The name god is only a replacement like the variable X, indicating that there is some missing information we call it X. X means only, we don’t know, but we might in the future. No where does it say that this X must be some intelligence!
God is not an answer really, its an excuse
I don’t like his argument.
At the end of the day, it is an argument from brute fact: the universe just is this way.
I feel like it is similar to a parent telling a child “Because I said so” after being asked “Why?”
“Because that’s the way things are” is not a satisfying answer, no matter how grandiloquently it is phrased.
That does seem to assume that things have a meaning outside of the fact of their own existence. Science doesn’t assume such things. It merely describes the mechanisms of existence and makes no particular note of their meaning. Meaning is the province of religion and philosophy.
Sure, science says ‘how’ and philosophy says ‘why,’ but that isn’t actually my complaint, although I can see how you could get that from my short comment.
He isn’t attempting to provide a scientific explanation, but a philosophical one. Given the freedom to explore ‘why’ questions, the answer he chooses as the best possible answer for an ultimate ‘why’ that doesn’t involve a God of some kind is… ‘because.’
I find it unsatisfying because the entire point of philosophy is to ask these kinds of questions and come up with interesting, and possibly even productive answers. His answer is uninteresting, unproductive, and it barely even qualifies as an answer. “The universe exists because the base state is nothing, but nothing can’t exist without something” is not a terrible thesis, but a) it is not anything like original, b) it is not particularly interesting, c) “nothing can’t exist without something” is uncomfortably close to a question-begging definition of “nothing,” and d) it is essentially an appeal to brute fact; that is, the reason why something exists at all boils down to the pure assertion that it does, and what’s worse is it boils down to this because of the way he is defining “nothing.”
/endrant
On a slightly different note, I’d like to point out that while there is nothing wrong with actively attempting to create ontological systems in order to cover perceived weaknesses in a worldview, often when a Christian cooks up a theodicy, they get yelled at. This guy is doing roughly the same thing. Fair warning.
Gotcha. I see your point.
That’s a good summation of Saunders, JonJon.
You don’t think that god is the ultimate, “that’s just the way it is” argument?
In some things, sure. In philosophy, no.
I think it was Victor J. Stenger that showed that “something” is actually a more inherently stable state of being than “nothing”. Furthermore, Stenger has totally thrown out the window the whole idea (misconception) that this universe is somehow fine tuned for life. His works are rather fascinating.
This essay reminded me of Douglas Adams’s Artificial God essay.
Yes. I find the ‘something is more stable and nothing’ arguments to be very persuasive. And I hear the math’s are good too.
I’ve re-read this a couple of times and it isn’t anything especially new. To my mind it seems a far more likely explanation that humans cannot comprehend exactly what the nature of the universe is. If an ant could to a limited degree place itself in space and time, it would think the earth is without end, just like we think the universe is. It’s hard for us to deal with the fact that we can’t understand it because we can identify that we can’t understand it.
I just want to say, this question has bugged me since I was a 6-year-old mormon boy. I conceived it on my own, probably around the same time I was learning that there was a universe and what our tiny place is in it.
Why does the universe exist? Beats me, but I might as well enjoy it while I’m here.
“Why does the universe exist?”
Probably, because beattles needed a place to be
[kind of quoting someone whose name I can't remember now]
These kinds of questions are only posed by people that think of themselves as “great thinkers”. The wannabe philosophers, and ego maniacal posers that look for attention and praise.
The next time someone says to you, “there is no such thing as a stupid question”, point to this one. Or, if you like, one of the other moronic questions asked by people trying to look important:
Why are we here? (Duh, to live)
What is the meaning of life? (To live)
Is this all that I am? (Unless you grow something new, yes)
Is there nothing more? (Who knows? But if you start walking, you will find out)
Where did we come from? (Mom and Dad. Aside from that, who cares? Live)
Where are we going? (Who cares? We’ll know when we get there)
These kinds of questions are only posed by people that think of themselves as “great thinkers”. The wannabe philosophers, and ego maniacal posers that look for attention and praise.
They are also posed by actual philosophers and profound thinkers, who are generally egomaniacal but are not necessarily posers.
“Where are we going? (Who cares?…”
Almost everybody.
Exactly.
Almost everybody.
Buncha posers.
:)
And at some point in the breezy time of the day, his mind overwhelmed and heart bursting with the pure joy and wonder of it all, he must have shouted out a Paleolithic version of that most essential of all questions: WTF?
This made me LOL. Most of the rest of the article annoyed me.
I knew I liked you…
I think the simplest and most logical answer to the question, “how do you explain the universe or existence?” is: you can’t. You can’t know why the universe exists because existence itself is the source, that is, the starting point of knowledge.
Bloody empiricist.
:-)
Existence is not an attribute. Therefore not existing is not simpler than existing. A universe that does not exist may well be more unlikely than getting ‘something’.
According to one school of philosophy (Kant and his ilk) existence is not an attribute. Many other excellent philosophers claim that existence is in fact an attribute. If you’d rather have transcendentalism, you can have it…
(I’m a snob, I admit it. Transcendentalism bugs the crap outta me.)
Kant was a complete cu…*ahem* very honorable gentleman with interesting and unique ideas. His deflation of the ontological argument was not among his more inspired.
*hug*
I had a classmate who loved Kant to death. All his teachers wanted to smack him, although he was something of a troublemaker to begin with. (I like to think they’re connected though…)
I think it still needs boiling down.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
“I could ask you the same question about God.”
The problem is, how do we define existence? Saunders defines existence as the relative difference between parts. But this seems like a somewhat anthropomorphic definition to me.
Let’s imagine a theoretical system where nothing is apart from anything else, a universe – or probably more suitable, a singularity – forever in a universally constant default state. Even though it would be physically impossible to measure this system, from without or even within, and even though noone can in any way know of it or interact with it, does this mean that it doesn’t objectively, inherently exist?
Conversely, can we define nothingness as a state? Whether or not, it would exhibit the exact same characteristics (ie, none at all) as the aforementioned default system.
His argument is simply,
I have two problems with his argument at this point. First, as JonJon noted, he hasn’t truly demonstrated scientifically that the universe has always existed–he has simply postulated such facts. His claim that a condition of “nothing” is not a possibility is simply an assertion. Through his discussion of Relativity he demonstrated that a condition of nothing can exist, it would simply be without meaning. This is what Hawking meant when he explained that to try and conceive of anything before the Big Bang was meaningless, because everything we would define it by was absent.
Secondly, I think he failed to demonstrate how it is “a logical impossibility” for matter to not exist. It may be impossible to conceptualize, but that doesn’t extrapolate to logically impossible.
In the end, I have to agree with JonJon that his argument amounts to one big assertion, which I believe he failed to support with scientific fact.
TL;DR
But, the way I’ve always understood it, was that before the Big Bang, there was a single point of “everything”, that expanded into the entire Universe. “Before” that point, there was quite literally “nothing”, not even what we know of as “time” or “causality”, so this tiny little something just appeared, because there were no physical laws dictating that it couldn’t.
It is also possible that a god or gods also appeared at this moment, either inside or outside of that expanding point, but there’s no evidence to suggest this of course.
There’s also a fair bit of math to show that ‘nothing’ is an extremely unstable state. ‘Something’ is far more stable. And as long as the net energy remains zero, no rules are being broken. It’s looking more and more likely that the net energy of the universe is zero.
And what, may I ask, is “net energy?”
I really have no idea what you’re talking about; energy is always a positive quantity. While the existence of exotic matter (i.e. matter with negative or imaginary mass) has not been entirely ruled out, it is quite obvious that the net energy of the universe is very far from zero (and this is true in any reference frame, since the invariant mass of the universe alone is already huge).
Perhaps you are referring to momentum, rather than energy, which does indeed seem to be roughly zero, although this is essentially impossible to confirm. Or perhaps you are referring to electric charge, which also must be conserved. I don’t know if there is any reasonable way to test if this the net charge of the universe is zero, although it is often assumed to be.
For a different and stupid view:
New astrophysical discoveries leave little to no room for Atheism, expert says
The article can be summed up with this quote: “There is no way to ignore the fact that [the universe] demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time”.
Ignoring the problem of God appearing out of nothing hardly qualifies as being scientific.
“therefore of a Creator outside space and time” …such narrow, narrow minds. I can’t help but think that they purposefully push this idea. A personal Jesus or God being is unbelievably powerful to a feeble human mind born ready for the brainwashing.
We want to feel that God is watching us – taking care of us – answering our prayers. We having a longing to speak with God – to call His name. The right music can send tears streaming down your face with the feeling that God’s love is with you and in you….the comfort a personal Jesus gives is like a warm blanket on a freezing winter’s night. It is like no other. Wrapped up in the love, it is warm, it feels like home…it is pure Love. There is no room for logic and reason under this fluffy, comfy blanket of warmth – and don’t you dare try to take it away from me.
I’m late to the conversation, but I was glad to see that the first comment addressed what I was going to say:
“1.- The answer God doesn’t solve the problem, as now we have to ask why is there a God and what created it, because “nothing comes from nothing””
The comments I’m reading make it sound like this article essentially boils down to a failure to understand general relativity, in which case it is certainly not worth my time. Time dilation results from acceleration through spacetime, not the changing rate of expansion of spacetime itself. If that is really whence the argument stems, it’s pretty disappointing.
This comment should have been a reply to comments earlier; obviously the entire article didn’t hinge on general relativity, just a particular part.
As The Beatles let us know at the end of A Day in the Life on St. Pepper in a delightfully trippy way nevercouldbeanyotherwaynevercouldbeanyotherwaynevercouldbeanyotherway
Clearly: to say “God created everything” solves nothing, since it leaves unanswered the question of what created God. It’s clear that ANY answer we provide for what created the universe suffers from the same problem. E.g. saying “The Big Bang caused everything” leaves unsolved the question of what caused the Big Bang.
This suggests to me that it’s the nature of consciousness to not know where it came from. If anyone of any stripe claims to know, it’s trickery.
As Dawkins points out: to explain the universe with God is particularly meaningless, because it explains the complex in terms of the more complex. That is, the universe is mysterious; if you say God created it, you’ve replaced it with an even bigger mystery, since God is higher, greater, more complex than the universe itself.
The particular virtue of the teaching of evolution is that it explains how something complex can arise from something more simple. Explaining the complex in terms of the simple (e.g., explaining how one-celled organisms could evolve into humans) may not be an absolutely complete explanation. But it accomplishes SOMETHING, whereas explaining the complex in terms of the more-complex (“God made everything”) accomplishes nothing.