• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

You Can't Get Something From Nothing.

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
I have heard this argument said by believers often, most the time in a response to non-believers.

Now the argument has many problems itself: It presupposes a "nothing", presupposes that "you can't get something" from this nothing and in traditional human egoistical arrogance it presuppose that humans actually understand and know such details about existence. Not to mention that establishing it as true advances our knowledge nowhere, as it neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods.

Now what I find most interesting about this statement is that it is a theistic response to what appears to be nothing at all. I have never heard a non-believer claim that you can get something from nothing and therefore God must not exist. As far as I can tell, this is a one-sided argument that is a theistic position unrelated to actual atheists.

So my question: Is the argument "You can't get something from nothing" a type of straw-man argument?
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Science says you can get life from non-living matter. But only God can make something from nothing. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be changed from one to the other. God is all power. He can change His power ( energy ) into matter. Science can make bombs that change matter to energy but only God can do the opposite.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Science says you can get life from non-living matter. But only God can make something from nothing. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be changed from one to the other. God is all power. He can change His power ( energy ) into matter. Science can make bombs that change matter to energy but only God can do the opposite.

You are off topic.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It isn't representative of what naturalists say about the early cosmos in any case. There's no assertion that there was ever 'nothing.' Especially given QM and brane cosmology.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I have heard this argument said by believers often, most the time in a response to non-believers.

Now the argument has many problems itself: It presupposes a "nothing", presupposes that "you can't get something" from this nothing and in traditional human egoistical arrogance it presuppose that humans actually understand and know such details about existence. Not to mention that establishing it as true advances our knowledge nowhere, as it neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods.

Now what I find most interesting about this statement is that it is a theistic response to what appears to be nothing at all. I have never heard a non-believer claim that you can get something from nothing and therefore God must not exist. As far as I can tell, this is a one-sided argument that is a theistic position unrelated to actual atheists.

So my question: Is the argument "You can't get something from nothing" a type of straw-man argument?

Its a straw-man argument in that you can't prove whether nothing is possible. My personal take is the nothing has never existed.
 

SabahTheLoner

Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
Why does the something have to be God? Why can’t it be an alternative state of existence?

Also “nothing” is pretty vague. Air is commonly considered “nothing” but there are millions, billions of atoms in the air. Space is also nothing, but to some it is something because we have a name for it. So, the argument by itself seems empty as a void.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
So my question: Is the argument "You can't get something from nothing" a type of straw-man argument?

Of course it is. There are many theories that use mathematical models to hypothesize the beginnings of our universe, and only some of them actually model the beginning of a universe at all. But there is no justification where we can claim that "Science" says one of those arguments is an absolute fact.

All we can say is most likely, based on some mathematical models of the data we currently possess, given currently levels of technology, the universe may have had a beginning.

Suggesting it absolutely does, and then claim that "Science" says it's so, is definitely a straw man.

Science is not in the habit of making absolute claims about a series of past events for which we have no way to demonstrably confirm. That's what religions do!
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
What if that nothing is already filled with potential? Either way, in my opinion there's no way of reliably knowing if the universe started out or has just continued existing.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
What if that nothing is already filled with potential? Either way, in my opinion there's no way of reliably knowing if the universe started out or has just continued existing.
I agree, and would add that we generally have no reliable way of knowing things we know nothing about.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I don't really care who he is, and I don't see what you think this demonstrates.
In which case I give up
I don't really care who he is, and I don't see what you think this demonstrates.
The title of your thread is "You can't get something from nothing".
Since Lawrence Krauss wrote a book postulating that you can get something from nothing, I would say it demonstrates quite a lot.

But if you don't want to learn, that's fine.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I have heard this argument said by believers often, most the time in a response to non-believers.

Now the argument has many problems itself: It presupposes a "nothing", presupposes that "you can't get something" from this nothing and in traditional human egoistical arrogance it presuppose that humans actually understand and know such details about existence. Not to mention that establishing it as true advances our knowledge nowhere, as it neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods.

Now what I find most interesting about this statement is that it is a theistic response to what appears to be nothing at all. I have never heard a non-believer claim that you can get something from nothing and therefore God must not exist. As far as I can tell, this is a one-sided argument that is a theistic position unrelated to actual atheists.

So my question: Is the argument "You can't get something from nothing" a type of straw-man argument?


That's where your absolutely wrong at. You can get something from nothing and that can be a proven fact.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
In which case I give up

The title of your thread is "You can't get something from nothing".
Since Lawrence Krauss wrote a book postulating that you can get something from nothing, I would say it demonstrates quite a lot.

But if you don't want to learn, that's fine.

Lots of people write lots of books about lots of things. Also please learn how to read, as I clearly said in the OP that it "presupposes that 'you can't get something' from this nothing " as a problem with the argument. I neither make the claim that you can or cannot get something from nothing. However, if you want to establish either one as factual then by all means lets see the actual data.
 
Top