Something Must Have Come From Nothing...

This is a question I used to contemplate often. It is ultimately a concept inconceivable as the universe itself. This question can be thought of in terms of time, or in terms of space. Where did the first being come to exist, when did the universe start? What exactly is "nothing", is there such a thing or is "nothing" a concept thought of by man.
 
Nothing is the absence of matter within a space. If there is no space there, then it is a different type of nothing.
 
That we can posit the occurrence of such a thing seems to imply that it is not possible for it to be entirely beyond our understanding - you discuss an understanding of the potential existence / facticity of it for starters. Anything entirely beyond our understanding, to the point where we cannot speak of it, may as well be nothing for all the effect it can ever have on us...

I think you're looking at it from too much of a logical standpoint. If something is "beyond our understanding," then it's perfectly... well, logical to assume that it defies logic. I know that's kind of a paradox.

Still, I'd like to reinforce that I don't believe a power "beyond our understanding" influenced us. I'm just arguing for the other side.
 
I think that there was some kind of mass that broke apart into what are now elements, metals, solids, liquids, etc. Then, just like how rocks are formed from mud, these elements grow and shape. One of the things in this mass are what are now humans, animals, fish, etc.

I don't believe in a big bang, though that's what it seems like from my first paragraph. I don't believe in a deity or higher being, because that seems like magic. And magic is nonexistant. No mystical events occcured in my opinion to create this world.

No one knows, and no one will ever know, these are just theories.
 
You don't believe in magic, or science, but rather your own made up fantasy? Nobody 'knows' anything, everything is just a theory, it is clear however that some give us more power to act in the world while some limit that power.
 
You don't believe in magic, or science, but rather your own made up fantasy? Nobody 'knows' anything, everything is just a theory, it is clear however that some give us more power to act in the world while some limit that power.

Me??
 
I think there is plenty that is far outside of our ability to understand. I think we can discuss the results of those things, but the things themselves we probably could not discuss, even if they were told to us. We have no frame of reference.

The fact is that somehow we exist and everything we experience exists to some degree, and it all came about in a way that is beyond comprehension.

As far as the beginning of anything: beginnings have to do with time. It puzzles us that we cannot fathom the absolute beginning, and where everything came from, but we have always lived inside of time. We wonder about something coming from nothing, but that also implies time, because it is a sequence. So what is existence (or whatever it is) outside of time? I think if we understood that, we might start to grasp things. But we cannot even begin to grasp the concept of being outside of time, thus my first paragraph.
 
I've always been curious about this, so I have a theory in mind, so it won't bother me - the will to know more.
As the universe is endless and has no beginning as well(at least, that's the way I see it from my personal perspective), I don't really see why everything should've ever been nothing.
The way I see it, everything always has been everything and nothing never really existed. That's my personal theory and I don't really think you should all see it very reasonable, I just share an opinion.
And as for God - I don't believe in God, and not really in the mood for religion discussions and arguments, so that pretty much makes my case here.
 
The world was only a small planet in space. But where did space come from? could anything have always existed? Surely everything that exists must have had a beginning?

As some point, something must have come from nothing....but what about god himself?

Even though God could create all kinds of things, he could hardly create himself before he had a "self" to create with.

So saying this... do you feel right living in the world without at least inquiring where it came from?



Discuss

I think the presupposition here, is the principle of sufficient reason which you have stated as "everything must have a cause". This I thin is a false assumption and the wrong principle to use in order to get actual answers about reality. Why do you assume this?

IF something has always existed, it obviously wouldnt require a cause, and besides this the principle leads either to a contradictory infinite regression or first self caused being which are both impossible. For something to be brought into existence it would first have to not exist. But in order to be ale to produce oneself into existence, one would already have to exist in order to do so. Since nothing can both exist and not exist simultaneously a self caused being is impossible. Likewise an infinite regression is impossible because unless there was a first cause for the series the series would never be able to exist as a successive series.

Another way to look at it is that there has to be a source of being for the contingent series, otherwise the contingent series wouldnt be. That is, either a being has existence in itself or it must receive it from another. That is, either a being has existence in itself and can therefore give it to another that needs it, or a being doesnt have existence in itself and must receive it from another. If every being needed existence from another but there was no being with existence in itself to be able to give it to another, then nothing would exist. But since something does exist, and beings are receiving their existence from another, for we exist moment by moment, this means there must be a being with existence in itself, whos able to give it to another, ie God. who is the source from which we must receive our existence.

The principle that does apply to reality is the principle of causality which states that only whatever comes to be needs a cause, so it applies to a more limited sphere of reality as opposed to the principle of sufficient reason.

The bottom line to this I think is that the universe is contingent, can either be or not be, is not necessary, and since whatever is contingent must be caused by another because it cannot cause itself, the universe must be caused by something beyond what is contingent/beyond the contingent time space universe..ie necessary=God. This follows I think from just using the basic first principles of reason, one of which is the law of causality. Whatever comes to be or can cease to be must be caused, the universe came to be/can cease to be, therefore the universe must be caused. So while nothing cannot cause something, where only something can cause something, something can cause something out of nothing which is consistent w the principle of causality.
 
I've always been curious about this, so I have a theory in mind, so it won't bother me - the will to know more.
As the universe is endless and has no beginning as well(at least, that's the way I see it from my personal perspective), I don't really see why everything should've ever been nothing.
The way I see it, everything always has been everything and nothing never really existed. That's my personal theory and I don't really think you should all see it very reasonable, I just share an opinion.
And as for God - I don't believe in God, and not really in the mood for religion discussions and arguments, so that pretty much makes my case here.

What do you do with the fact that the universe changes/change is real and only something necessary cannot change nor cease existing? That is, if only something necessary must be and cannot not be, and cannot change lest it be able to change from being to non being, and we change, the universe changes, expands outward, wouldnt that mean it/we cannot be necessary and therefore must be contingent ie able to both be or not be? If we/it can either be or not be, if we/it has a possibility to not exist, what can determine it to either? ourself/itself??
 
I think there is plenty that is far outside of our ability to understand. I think we can discuss the results of those things, but the things themselves we probably could not discuss, even if they were told to us. We have no frame of reference.

The fact is that somehow we exist and everything we experience exists to some degree, and it all came about in a way that is beyond comprehension.

As far as the beginning of anything: beginnings have to do with time. It puzzles us that we cannot fathom the absolute beginning, and where everything came from, but we have always lived inside of time. We wonder about something coming from nothing, but that also implies time, because it is a sequence. So what is existence (or whatever it is) outside of time? I think if we understood that, we might start to grasp things. But we cannot even begin to grasp the concept of being outside of time, thus my first paragraph.

Only a chronological sequence implies time. How would an ontological sequence imply time? Like couldnt something always exist, not exist in time, not have a beginning, and begin time/space/matter? Ontologically prior isnt the same thing as chronologically prior. While you cannot have a time before time, you can have (non temporal) existence and then time beginning without contradiction. Since nothing cannot cause something, and something began, how would that not mean something beyond time caused the beginning and continuing existence of the contingent temporal universe? Also if we cant grasp the concept of being outside time does that mean your statement about how we CANT know about this being beyond time is meaningless?
 
Everything came from a void, a perfect neutrality. But it neither came, nor went, it happened so fast it never happened. Remember, time and space are themselves illusions, a product of this illusion.

Thank you for listening. I hope you're better people now.

How does nothingness give somethingness when it has no somethingness to give? A thing can only give what it has to give, it can't give what it doesnt have. If nothing is nothing, that is, that which is not and has no being, then it cannot give being to another. It neither has existence nor power to do so. If you really believed this then you wouldnt need to go to the bank for money, youd merely have to go to your empty pockets for money and think that actually makes any sense. Since only something can give something, and something now exists, then it follows that something must have caused what now exists but doesnt have to be. If time, which implies change of befores and afters, is illusion, then how do you prove you dont change without being in the experiential process of changing to do so?
 
Nothing came from nothing! Jesus christ. Atoms are used and used again. Matter cannot be destroyed or created. It is constantly recycled. So we can conclude that every molecule that currently exists, existed forever, just in different states.
 
Nothing came from nothing! Jesus christ. Atoms are used and used again. Matter cannot be destroyed or created. It is constantly recycled. So we can conclude that every molecule that currently exists, existed forever, just in different states.

but why?