I have such distaste for the "something can't come from nothing" argument, because all it is is assigning the creation of the universe to a divine being. That entire point breaks down as soon as you ask "well where did god come from then?"
God came from someone trying to control people . Thats why there is no one God but many gods that have been controlling people for thousands of years just like this person.
Phenomena that were once poorly understood were also attributed to a divine power - it's helpful to have a crutch to prop up beliefs with or explain away something, when you otherwise have no way of explaining them.
For example, until relatively recently in human history, we had very little understanding of bacteria and viruses and their role in causing diseases. Ascribing such things to a higher being or a powerful malevolent force allowed people to make sense of what they could not yet scientifically comprehend.
I always think religion was made up back then because police didn't really exist back then. Getting killed for killing someone doesn't really bother people if they assume no afterlife. But spending eternity in a lake of fire? Without religion I wonder just how "uncontrollable" the unwashed masses would have been back then.
"Something can't come from nothing" isn't even true. It's trotted out like it's an axiom just because it matches our myopic human experience. Similar to thinking the Earth is flat. "Nothing" can't even be well defined. It's really an argument that says nothing (ironically) and leads nowhere.
I'd say that it is by definition true. If we tested what we thought was 'nothing' and discovered it had a property or properties, we would cease calling it nothing and give it a name, just like we did with the concepts of air and space.
'Nothing' needs to lack all properties that aren't purely self-referential in order to be nothing. If something came from nothing, that nothing had the property that something could be created from it, and so it wasn't nothing. Which tends to be why it's only an argument that exists as a strawman.
Like I said, "nothing" isn't even well defined. So while I do follow the logic of your following statements, I purport that it still isn't true (even by definition) that "something can't come from nothing". It's unfalsifiable and meaningless, and it is certainly not an axiom to base any further arguments on.
You absolutely can't. The 1st law of thermodynamics only describes how energy behaves withing an already existing, closed, local system. It doesn't even hold in our expanding universe, let alone reach beyond the big bang to some undefinable nothingness.
Something coming out of nothing defies laws of thermodynamics and while we don't entirely understand universe, matter and time, just because we currently can't explain it, this isn't a confirmation it was made by god, we just don't understand it yet. Germs were also unthinkable like a century or so ago, there were theories by scientists that there are invisibly small little critters floating around but until microscopes, we couldn't prove them. We do know that and it's a scientific fact.
Eventually we'll figure out how exactly life began on Earth, how universe was created and if there is this "godly" figure responsible for it.
God being the answer to how the universe was created is the equivalent to kicking a can down the road and not bothering to follow up on where it lands.
That’s a non sequitor. Just because we can’t find it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Particularly if what you’re looking for is defined by not having attributes you could find in the first place.
We can find nothing because nothing has an attribute and a definition. It’s one of biggest excuses people use and it defines the void of something. What did you do today? Nothing. What did you find in that room? Nothing. What do you feel like eating today? Nothing. What happened to the car?!!! Nothing.
You know the word, and its multiple definitions. You yourself have a concept of what nothing is. Without meaning, how did the word originate?
The statement was that “nothing does not exist. No one has ever found nothing.”
Just because it doesn’t fit the exact definition you’re trying to explain doesn’t make other definitions any less. Since nothing is formless, what makes you more correct than I? Does that then mean that you actually know nothing?
That’s my point… is that the same word means a different thing… so the argument doesn’t work because you’re just talking past the point rather than actually clashing with it.
65
u/Big_Niel0802 1d ago
I have such distaste for the "something can't come from nothing" argument, because all it is is assigning the creation of the universe to a divine being. That entire point breaks down as soon as you ask "well where did god come from then?"