Infinity versus nothing
Because if there is no greater intelligence, or being outside of being, then why should anything ever arise naturally from nothing? - the universe is billions of years old. Life had to happen out of nothing only once ...
It why is there a universe in the first place? Or anything at all for that matter?
There is still one thing overlooked by theists and atheists alike that works against their respective agendas.
If the universe is indeed so congenial to life, then why should it require an all-powerful creator to create it.
Or,if it wasn't at all congenial,then it might definitely require an omniscient being to make it happen. Either way, you lose.
@SBF - good point.
Yes, this thread is about the start of the universe, not about the start of life.
SBF- “Saying there is no God isn’t an answer either. Because even if you say there is no God, you still have the problem of why there is something rather than nothing.”
This point stands up to logic. But this question is only problematic if there is such a thing as ‘nothing’. If there is no such thing as nothing, which physics is understanding more and more, then the possibility is that there has always been ‘something’, which is still a problem to solve, but doesn’t have to involve a God in order to have an answer.
If we were to write off the problem of why there is no such thing as nothing, and attribute it to some God, it stifles any understanding that could prove otherwise.
In this field of physics in the last few years, so much has been learnt that shows that there is no such thing as nothing. If you hit space hard enough, even though there is nothing in it, you can extract matter. So even empty space is ‘something’.
SBF- “…if there is no greater intelligence, or being outside of being, then why should anything ever arise naturally from nothing?”
Because there is no such thing as nothing. A difficult concept for human logic to understand, which we are far from understanding at the moment. But from what physics seems to be discovering, there is no such thing as nothing, which has a further knock on argument to the concept of a creator.
SBF- “Or why has something always been?
This is a great question, without an answer at the moment unfortunately. But this question highlights the lack of necessity of a God creating anything at all. An alternative question could be… if ‘something’ has always been in existence, how could God have created it?
If energy and matter don’t ever go out of existence and expand into eternity by transformation or by morphing into alternative particles/forces etc, it means these forces are ‘immortal’. If they are immortal it means they were never ‘created’. If they were not created then a God could never have made them, because as you say in your question, ‘something’ has always been there.
So when you look at this perspective from a completely alternative logic… it stands to reason that if there is no such thing as ‘nothing’, there always had to be ‘something’… which could never have been made. What that is and how it all works is being worked on right now.
Coincidentally, last night I was privileged to attend a lecture in London by Lawrence Krauss, in celebration of Darwin Day. All of these questions have been worked on to a large extent and are covered in his new book.
The lecture was an overview of his new book. I have not read it fully myself yet, but after yesterdays lecture and having a quick dip into his book, a lot of the questions that you have asked have been addressed. Might be worth a read. It is fascinating what they now know and have recently discovered which I’m sure you will find interesting.
Your worshipful ness, I know a lot of atheists. None of them have an agenda. Other than a handful of activists, you would be hard pressed to find atheists with agendas.
Otoh, the vast majority of religious people have an agenda. Both x tianity and Islam are predicated on spreading their infections.
Take yourself, for example. your imminence (and Your Eminence), 100% of the reason you're on this site is to influence your agenda.
Download and process. your holiness, being an atheist is the exact opposite of agenda. It is a calm (oooooooommmmm) rational evaluation of evidence.
Excluding God from the picture doesn't solve that central problem or mystery. - SBF
Excluding god eliminates a foolish distraction. God adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Of course why is there something rather than nothing is the ultimate question. Superstitious people who pretend they know the answer have nothing useful or even interesting to say.
I can give you a simple example for agenda. Atheists/evolutionists use the word instinct. You might have observed cat, after releasing its feces, covering it making a heap of sand over it—an amazing feat (which shows consideration for others), a superb loving act that it could not have learned from even humans. Why can’t the atheists/evolutionists use the correct word that brings out its implied truth? For me both (atheists and theists) makes no difference!
an amazing feat (which shows consideration for others), a superb loving act that it could not have learned from even humans.
Your ignorance of ethology is amazing. Do you get your natural history knowledge from Disney?
Do some research on why cats cover up their shit. It has nothing at all to do with being polite. It is an evolutionary adaption related to dominance.
Even if science could provide the answers to where the matter/energy came from before our universe existed, I get that our limited minds would not process that well and we would still be hung up on wanting a simple explanation.
Regardless of where you are on your questions, putting God into the equation does not eliminate the problem.
Where did "god" come from? How did this "god" come to life to having the properties and drive that it has? Did "god" simply always exist? How? Then why can't matter/energy have always existed? It's just as difficult to answer with or without a god.