Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?

[randum731]

GeeLyria. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1. It says in the beginning. At that moment God created time as well.. you see the whole what came first chicken or the egg theory. is invalid because it involves time for that.. you cant create without time.. so if time didnt exist then he was just there.. you cant create him.. 

[GeeLyria]

Hm... *scratches head* The real question is, who created God? Nothing? o__o

Nothing can't create anything. Nothing is nothing, so it can do nothing at all. So scratch that!

Uh... nevermind... The bible has the answer:

Revelations 1:8 says: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which IS, and which WAS, and which is to come, the Almighty."

So, who created everything? Someone who always existed.

".....from everlasting to everlasting you are God." -Psalm 90:2

[kainedamo]

Atheists don't say that nothing can produce something. That's a strawman.

[GodAndScienceOrg]

@kainedamo Are you saying that Lawrence Krauss is not an atheist? Type in "Universe from Nothing"

[kainedamo]

@GodAndScienceOrg You realize that one atheist does not represent the whole. The only thing that atheists have in common is the disbelief in god.

[robtbo]

There's a lot of assumptions in that question. First, it assumes that a "why" exists. Second, it assumes nothingness is the default, when a human mind can't even comprehend literal nothingness.

Replace "something" with "god" and the question remains just as unanswerable.

[TheAnimeAtheist]

There is no chance because we aren't supposed to be here? No there is no chance because it already happened. Why it happened nobody can say yet, but that doesn't mean all of a sudden gods exist.

[Gnomefro]

The argument for why something is the default could be stated like:

Something exists now(Premise)

If something exists now, it is possible for that something to exist

The possibility of the existence of something is an inherent attribute of reality if the possibility is there at all.

The possibility of the existence of something is not nothing

Therefore, nothing has never been the case in reality.

Q.E.D.

[Gnomefro]

"Why is there something instead of nothing? Atheists says that nothing can produce something. Is that true?"

Some atheists say that, but it's clear from the way they are using the word in a poetic sense because they are talking about attributes of "nothing", such as the ability to have quantum fluctuations. This is something else than the common use of the word nothing, which suggests something inert. To interpret such statements in good faith is to understand quantum fluctuations as eternal.

[Gnomefro]

@Gnomefro Or I suppose I should say "nothing inert" ;) The whole point is non-manifestation, inertness and absence of attributes anyway, and this has clearly never been the state of reality ever. It's simply a logical contradiction to claim this. No matter if theism or atheism is true. So really, it's just a red herring to talk about that question. Something is necessarily the default. Naturalists believe this something is nature, because it's all we have evidence for.

[LookingForCoffee]

You can't talk about the 'chance' of the universe existing because it's a 100%. Without other universes to compare this one to we have no way of talking about statistics for universes forming.

All we can say is that something does exist, that matter and energy seem to be eternal by our estimations and that the big bang is as far back as we've been able to wind the clock.