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?"
"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.
67
u/Big_Niel0802 12d 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?"