WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING ?
Main Points:
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is used by religion
preachers to push you towards belief in God which they assume is the
explanation, the answer.
Nothing by definition is the complete opposite of something. Nothing is by
definition that which cannot become something by itself or if anything works on
it.
Something cannot come from nothing for there is nothing there for it to come
from. Thus nothing cannot become something by itself or if anything works on it.
If God exists, he cannot make something except from something.
If God exists, he had nothing to do with our existence! But then would God
really be God for God is all-powerful? No.
To say God can make things out of nothing is to say that if something external
to nothing works on it it can change into something. But nothing needs to have
the power to become something. It needs to have the power to respond to God
ordering it to become something. It cannot have for then it wouldn't be nothing.
To say nothing has the power to respond to God's power to change it into
something is to deny that God created all things. He did not and could not
create the power to respond.
Why is there something rather than nothing seeks the answer: "its created - made
but not out of anything." But that tells us nothing about whether the cause of
this knew what it was doing. So we have a spectrum between something of infinite
intelligence to something that acts blindly. The question pushes you to accept a
blind cause for that is all you need. It could be more akin to computer software
than a person.
How comes first. If there is no how then why ask why? So change the question to
the more important: How is there something rather than nothing? The Church
admits that this cannot be understood. It says you cannot understand God. If we
don’t understand the how then we there is no point in asking the why.
God has no relevance to the existence of the universe.
Another reason he has no relevance to answering why there is something rather
than nothing is that there is no evidence that a mind without a body can exist.
That is why you cannot say that God is the answer to why something and not
nothing for he is claimed to be that sort of mind.
A person is supposedly more important than the whole universe. So why not ask
then, "Why does this person exist and not nothing? Why this person and not
another?" There is something dehumanising in asking the question of why anything
exists. Trying to say that God solves the puzzle of why there is anything is
basically not about ethics or morals. If God is morality as religion says then
what is going on? Religion is giving a scientific theory: "God made it all".
While there is controversy about the difference between religion and science,
anything that leaves out the morality is incontestably about science.
Religion is more interested in why the universe exists for it wants to undercut
science.
What if he made a universe that will never hold life? Would the question of why
something instead of nothing be a sane question then? It is not intrinsically a
question that makes sense.
Whatever the reason or reasons for why there is something rather than nothing,
God is not the answer. We don't need to be specific. We have no duty to be.
Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?
We know that God believers argue that God is the reason all things exist, he is
the reason movement exists, he is the first cause and he is the reason we see
design. All these arguments can be summarised like this, "Why is there something
rather than nothing? The answer is God."
The question fails in the search for a proof for God. Here are some proofs for
God. Nothing causes itself. There must be a cause of all things that has no
cause itself and that can only be God. Nothing moves itself. There must be a
mover of all things that never moves.
You can reformulate the question as, “Why is there movement when there might
have been no movement?” “Why is there cause when there might have been no
cause?” These questions are still asking the same thing, “Why is there this
instead of nothing?” Therefore every single proof for God is a failure.
Each individual argument for God is useless. They are based on the absurdity of
creation out of nothing. So the question cannot really lead you to God. It is a
trick to mask the stupidity of the case for God as a major and clever question.
A Quick Refutation of God as the Answer
If nothing causes something that is unintelligible. It does not make sense.
There is nothing there. There is no cause there. God did not make anything from
himself. That would be transformation not creation. So the Church says God
created all things from nothing. Creation by God from nothing tells us that God
is able to make nothing cause something. That is nonsense. They are saying that
something cannot come from nothing and then they say it did after all!
Christianity says it does not believe God made all things out of nothing like
nothing was some kind of material to make all things from. It says nothing is
not a material. God simply made all things but he didn't use anything to make
them. That is what it says it means by God making all things out of nothing.
There are two options if all things came to be without coming out of anything.
One is that all things were made out of nothing as if nothing were a material.
This view denies that nothing really is nothing. It denies that God need be the
only explanation for the existence of all things.
The other option is that there is no connection between something and nothing so
whatever exists just popped into existence out of nowhere, out of nothing.
It seems foolish and counter-intuitive to say that something can pop out of
nothing. You can't imagine a hundred dollar bill doing it. So some then wonder
how the universe could simply pop into existence. The suggestion that nothing
can be used like an ingredient to make something is far worse. The reality is
that in physics, things are observed coming into being from nowhere.
Philosophers might say, "If you think something popping into existence is stupid
then you are right. But you overlooking the uniqueness of the Big Bang so it is
not stupid in that case. The Big Bang started off the universe as a whole. It
cannot be compared with a banknote popping into existence." Actually the Big
Bang produced chaos and a great deal of matter and energy. A Big Bang that
creates a banknote would have less work to do! The talk about the uniqueness of
the Big Bang is irrelevant for the only thing really unique about it is the
scale of the power and energy that appeared.
And the Big Bang theory is not about creation. It supposes that there was
already something there to explode.
If there is no logical contradiction in God making the universe out of nothing,
then it is said that there is no logical contradiction in the idea of the
universe popping into existence without a maker. But even if there is a God it
still must have popped out of nothing. So the first suggestion is illogical in
the sense that it introduces God unnecessarily.
If creation is illogical, then it is more illogical to bring God into it. It
makes a stupid theory far worse.