Where did the universe come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? These are questions that have been asked for as long as there have been humans to ask questions. We want to know where we came from and where we are headed.
Scientists have discovered that the universe – space, time, and matter – had an absolute beginning in an event called the Big Bang nearly 14 billion years ago. Many atheistic scientists were reluctant to admit this because of its obvious theological inferences. If the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. And if it has a cause, that cause must be space-less, timeless, and immaterial – God.
For a long time, the atheistic assumption regarding the universe was that it was a “brute fact”, to quote Bertrand Russell. Science has shown that to be false. The universe began. Having their fundamental assumption ripped out from underneath them, atheists needed a way to avoid the obvious theological conclusion. What would rescue them? What could explain the absolute beginning of the universe, if not God? Nothing. No really, nothing.
Is nothing nothing, or is it something?
The word nothing at least means:
- no power
- no properties
- no potential
If nothing means no potential, which it does, then something from nothing is logically impossible.
There are only three possibilities with regard to the origin of the universe:
- The universe is eternal – proven false by modern cosmologist.
- The universe came from nothing – logically impossible.
- The universe has a Cause that is space-less, timeless, and immaterial.
So, what is the atheist to do, convert? Don’t be silly. Why convert, when you can redefine words?
Redefining Nothing
Now, certain pop-atheists/scientists are redefining the word nothing to give it properties, power, and potential. They don’t even hide the fact that they have redefined it.
They will say, “We now know the universe can and did come from nothing!”
If you inquire about this, you will discover that they don’t mean literally nothing, they mean a quantum vacuum.
If you dare to think logically, you will say, “But isn’t a quantum vacuum something, and not nothing?”
“Nonsense!” you will be told. “In science, a quantum vacuum is nothing.”
However, if a quantum vacuum really is nothing, then why not call it “nothing” instead of “quantum vacuum”? Because it isn’t actually nothing. This is a classic bait and switch. If it were truly nothing then they would call it nothing, but it isn’t, so they call it a quantum vacuum at times (usually in the body of an article, or book, in smaller letters) and they call it nothing at other times (usually on front covers in large print). How convenient.
The thing is: this is the worst bait and switch ever. Something and nothing are polar opposites. In order for a bait and switch to work, the two things being switched should at least be closely related so as to go unnoticed. But if you try to switch nothing with something, good luck. It’s obvious. They know it’s obvious. They don’t care.
Believers are often accused of believing in magic. “Something from nothing” is worse than magic. At least with magic we have a magician and a hat. With nothing, well, nothing.
Haden Clark 
Reasonably and logically, if indeed there ever was “nothing”, there would be nothing now. Also…the notion of existence arising spontaneously from nothing is forever scientifically unverifiable, since nothing, by definition, is incapable of yielding any evidence of itself. And alas…it is to the alter of evidence that the strict materialist directs his worship.
C.J. Cameron
LikeLike
“The universe has a Cause that is space-less, timeless, and immaterial.”
In other words, not a ’cause- cause’, but a ’cause-y cause’. That makes no more sense than a ‘real nothing’, and is a tortured equivocation.
I’m guessing that the cause-y cause is somehow also supposed to be a person who lacks the metaphysical properties associated with being somewhere and doing something (as a cause-cause would).
Now the question is: Convert to what? Incoherence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quantum causality.
Anything else?
LikeLike
Not relevant. The metaphysics is the same.
LikeLike
“My bathwater is getting dirty, best throw out the baby”.
You throw out your nebulous theories long before we throw out our hard data. Sorry.
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
These things that seem so obvious to folks like us that dare to wonder and critique is largely taken for granted by too many. I’m glad you wrote this out so I can reference it out and not have to painstakingly write/repeat it myself 😅
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Lead me to the Cross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The issue of fact or non-fact is that all that is perceived is that which is defined by the individual. The ability to have thought and communicate the message is that of Human construction. All that is available on this subject is that of Human construction. As a Soul, there is only one construct
LikeLike
All that is communicated, not necessarily all that is perceived.
“The heck was that?”
‘No idea.’
Classified as known unknown falls short of defined. (this) Language as it stands is cultural artifice, but language based on brute logical linear philosophy is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. I’d even argue Japanese shows signs of such impossible compression in its zero dyslexia rate. Kanji are pretty spectacular.
Besides, language began as an instinct, not an idea. Wolves howl. Dogs bark. Monkeys screech. Do they compose their statements or simply let them out? Impossible to dismiss the “from the hip” explosions of language as purely psychological or purely spiritual. We curse at pain. We cheer at pleasant surprise. There is a biochemical trigger there we are not in total control of. You may want the man with Tourette’s to stop swearing by act of will and grace of spirit, but the fact is his brain produces chemicals that preclude your assumptions.
Which isn’t to say the Light isn’t coming in, you’re just forgetting about the stained glass windows. Point of view shades the light it receives. Rage sees red. Righteous wrath sees white. Envy sees green. Depression sees blue, or darkly. Fear sees yellow. So perhaps one greater Soul-construct in sum, in fact almost certainly in my view, but it’s a disco ball at the center of the Unified Subjective. Its facets are constructs too. Wheels within wheels.
LikeLike
Thank you for supporting my view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what do you believe in?
LikeLike
Also, there is the possibility that the universe created itself but it had to exist to create itself in the first place. So sorry, no cigar.
Second, the entire universe was compressed into a singularity, oh sorry, they changed that story too!!!! I wonder what fairytale they will concoct next!!!!????
LikeLike
The Cosmic egg does track with Christian doctrine as far as it goes. That was God’s office when he was making the blueprints. Let There Be Light released the photons to race from the center and seek the edges of the Universe. The next six “days” were spent compiling code into a coherent program.
Physics engine, then setting. Like any AAA game company would do, except his medium is space/time’s action upon matter and not pixel action on a screen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This sounds like Greek to me. Lol!
I don’t believe that God used evolution to create the universe. He had a specific design in which He used to create all things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with the second part Kristian, but I liked it to programming or blowing up a balloon. First you write code, or get a balloon. Then you compile it, or inflate it. Yes, you wrote the code, but the compilation process is a matter of letting the code interact with itself and its environment.
Adam and Eve expressed an error in compilation, so their bubble burst, and they had to spend the rest of their lives editing code manually.
LikeLike
The idea that the universe came from the quantum vacuum is poorly represented here. The quantum vacuum is a steady state of all quantum fields within the limits of uncertainty. The fields are seen as eternal. It’s a way of reframing the idea that the universe is eternal: the space, time, and matter had a beginning, but they are built on something else (the quantum fields) which had no beginning.
There are potential problems with this view, of course. Many of the potential problems are beyond our ability to measure, but others are pretty simple. If we are a result of a random quantum variation, why is the cosmic microwave background so consistent across the whole sky? The most likely answer is that it all “banged” at the same time, but there’s no reason for a random fluctuation to happen in more than one point. This is why some cosmologists say that the speed of light wasn’t a speed limit in the universe until a few seconds after the big bang: that way the bang can happen, spread out really fast (faster than light) and then continue.
Overall, the thing I like least about this argument is that every time we find out more about the beginning of the universe, it pushes God further away. It’s a God-of-the-gaps problem. The God of the Bible is not a God of the gaps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent post. As Julie Andrews sings, “Nothing comes from nothing-nothing ever could..”-Big Bang doesn’t make logical sense. My Uncle, who is an atheist says to him Faith doesn’t make any sense, that it’s hard to believe in something. This post explains it logically, I will read this to him. He is not on social media. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The world was created by GOD
LikeLike