You Can't Get Something From Nothing.

[ChristineM]

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?

It is mathematically possible in QM

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Yeah, it could be. Nobody has claimed the universe came from nothing. We don't know what existed before the big bang. For that matter, humans have no examples of what nothing is, and we cannot therefore know the properties of "nothing".

Maybe also an argument from personal incredulity? "I don't know how you can do it, therefore, it can't be done".

 

[osgart]

nothing is the absence of everything and anything. if something does come from nothing, that would be magic. I'm not a believer in magic myself.

a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum would have to be something. it is not nothing. using the term nothing that way is just a ploy to sell books.

religion is still a valid exploration into the subjective experience, and it's intuitions.

 

[robocop (actually)]

From Epicureanism - Wikipedia (Epicurean Physics):

Epicurus' philosophy of the physical world is found in his Letter to Herodotus: Diogenes Laertius 10.34–83.

If the sum of all matter ("the totality") was limited and existed within an unlimited void, it would be scattered and constantly becoming more diffuse, because the finite collection of bodies would travel forever, having no obstacles. Conversely, if the totality was unlimited it could not exist within a limited void, for the unlimited bodies would not all have a place to be in. Therefore, either both the void and the totality must be limited or both must be unlimited and – as is mentioned later – the totality is unlimited (and therefore so is the void).

Forms can change, but not their inherent qualities, for change can only affect their shape. Some things can be changed and some things cannot be changed because forms that are unchangeable cannot be destroyed if certain attributes can be removed; for attributes not only have the intention of altering an unchangeable form, but also the inevitable possibility of becoming—in relation to the form's disposition to its present environment—both an armor and a vulnerability to its stability.

Further proof that there are unchangeable forms and their inability to be destroyed, is the concept of the "non-evident." A form cannot come into being from the void—which is nothing; it would be as if all forms come into being spontaneously, needless of reproduction. The implied meaning of "destroying" something is to undo its existence, to make it not there anymore, and this cannot be so: if the void is that which does not exist, and if this void is the implied destination of the destroyed, then the thing in reality cannot be destroyed, for the thing (and all things) could not have existed in the first place (as Parmenides said, ex nihilo nihil fit: nothing comes from nothing). This totality of forms is eternal and unchangeable.

There's more in the link.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

It's a completely meaningless statement. Until you can provide an example of nothing, how can you say with certainly that something can't come from it?

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

" But only God can make something from nothing." Care to provide some evidence for this claim?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Plenty of evidence. Just look around. Did it all come from nothing or was there some great creative power behind it. Remember matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be changed from one to the other. God used His power to make matter.

 

[syo]

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

no. it's the truth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

"I have never heard a non-believer claim that you can get something from nothing and therefore God must not exist."


As Altfish noted

Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing (2012)

He's a pretty notable spokesman for atheism. So the argument 'you never heard' certainly exists and has a good sized following.


But I think we both agree? you can't get something from nothing?

As a theist, I don't think anything can be truly created without creativity

 

[Thief]

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?

let me cheat.....

you can't say the 'void' is something
it's void

but 'something' was there and took 'form'.....becoming 'something'
with form

yeah I know......straw came soooo much later

 

[Faithofchristian]

You can't get something from nothing.

With human logic you can't get something from nothing.
But then God doesn't go by human logic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can't get something from nothing.

Demonstrate it. Provide an example of nothing to test.

With human logic you can't get something from nothing.
But then God doesn't go by human logic.

Well, that tends to happen when you invent a rule and then invent a thing that doesn't have to obey that rule.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Demonstrate it. Provide an example of nothing to test.


Well, that tends to happen when you invent a rule and then invent a thing that doesn't have to obey that rule.

You ask, Demonstrate it, Provid an example of nothing to test.

First you would need to have the basics on how something works.
That's like asking. NASA rocket scientist to explain to you about the mechanics of a rocket.

But you don't even have the basics down on how the mechanics of a rocket works.

At lease have some basics on how something works, before asking how something works.

 

[godnotgod]

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?

One of the problems in understanding both 'something' and 'nothing', is that the 'nothing' so conceptualized by the ordinary mind is a 'nothing' that is always relative to the concept of 'something'. IOW, this conceptualized 'nothing', is not nothing at all, but exists only in relation to what 'something' might be. This view is, therefore, a dual view, where the two concepts are inextricably intertwined. But real, honest to goodness 'Nothing', must necessarily be absolute. And it is. Not only is Nothing an absolute, but it is The Absolute, since there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. But one might ask: "But something clearly exists, so Nothing cannot be absolute, let alone The Absolute." However, to think that 'something' exists as 'real' is an assumption, based upon what we think to be confirmation via the 5 senses. The error the conceptual mind makes is to mistake form for 'things'. This is perceptual reality. It is not Ultimate Reality. That is to say, it is not indicative of the true nature of Reality. If it were, mystics would not seek Higher Ground beyond the faulty senses, and science would not seek 'factual knowledge'. Today, Quantum Physics now understands that what it thought to be a 'particle', is not a particle at all, but standing waves, created via fluctuations in the surrounding field within which the particle 'exists'. So, in reality, there are no such 'material' particles. There is only Nothing, playing itself as Something; playing Itself as 'the material world'. In understanding 'something' in this way, there is no further problem, and there is no longer a dual view, and therefore, no conflict. Nothing and Something are in perfect harmony. Reality remains as One. So what is this 'Absolute Nothing'? It is Pure Consciousness. It is The Unified Field; Brahman; The Void, Tao, etc., and out of it comes The Universe, but not as separate from Nothing. The Universe, as 'Something', is being played as such by 'Nothing'. This is the play of maya, and now seems to be confirmed by Quantum Physics in the discovery of the energy field creating the appearance of 'particles'.

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."
Albert Einstein

The Particle: Introduction

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

In the image below, you can see that the figure is inextricably tied to the surrounding field.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

We observe that the way nature behaves is in cycles, and if this is indicative of all of nature's behavior, then the Universe also occurs in cycles. It would come into Existence, and return to the state of Non-Existence, or, as you suggested, the state of potential. And Quantum Physics now seems to be confirming this idea, by saying that the world is a 'superposition of possibilities'. So in this view, The Universe can both have a beginning, and have always existed, in either the manifested phase, or the non-manifested phase. When not being manifested as the material world, it continues to exist as pure formless potential.