Argument for God: Does Nothingness Make Sense?

  • Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Argument
In summary, the conversation revolves around the idea of whether the universe could have originated from nothing and if the concept of a god is necessary to explain its existence. Some argue that the natural state of the universe should be nothing, while others believe that it is just as mysterious as a universe filled with matter. Some scientists propose that the universe can come from nothing through the laws of nature, while others argue that these laws could be the thoughts of a god. The concept of an infinite universe is also discussed, with the question of whether the universe has a collective consciousness or if consciousness is just an illusion. Overall, the topic is deemed sensitive and closed for further discussion.
  • #1
Holocene
237
0
Not trying to get into any religious debate here, but often an argument from believers is that, without a god, the universe would've had to "come from nothing".

The question is, do we have any reason at all to believe that the "natural" state of affairs should be nothing instead of something?

Seems to me that complete nothingness would be just as mysterious as a universe filled with matter.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
"Argumenting" for or against "beliefs" seems self-contradictory. But let me point that
Holocene said:
the universe would've had to "come from nothing".
Many scientists have no problem with a slight variation on that theme : the Universe can come from "nothing" (in terms of "no matter-energy and no space-time") and creating it "spontaneously" from just laws. Of course, one can then argue that such "laws" are the "thoughts of God". This point is irrelevant to the people playing seriously this game, the vast majority of them viewing that their own personal beliefs has nothing to do with science.
 
  • #3
We exist in something, so there couldn't possibly be "nothing". And if there is something (which there is) it must be infinite (no beginning or end)... because you can't make something out of nothing. And something can’t destroy itself. It could, however, act upon itself in a positive and negative mode, but its inherent equilibrium would insist the laws cancel each other out continually (does this sound familiar? :)

As for there being a God, I don’t think one is conducive to an infinite universe, because, by its very definition, every characteristic of such a universe must simply be a different aspect of one and the same thing.

So, the real question for me is “Does the universe itself have a collective consciousness (some belief systems refer to this a God Consciousness), or is consciousness just an illusion of the individual mind?”
 
  • #4
Closed for further consideration of the allowability of the topic by the mentors.
 

1. What is the argument for the existence of God based on "nothingness"?

The argument for God based on nothingness is known as the cosmological argument, which states that the existence of the universe and all its components cannot be explained solely by natural causes, but must ultimately be attributed to a supernatural being or God. This argument suggests that since something cannot come from nothing, there must have been a first cause or prime mover that initiated the creation of the universe.

2. How does this argument address the concept of "nothingness"?

This argument addresses the concept of nothingness by acknowledging that something cannot come from nothing. In other words, the existence of the universe and all its components cannot be explained by pure chance or by natural causes, but must ultimately be attributed to a supernatural being or God. This concept of "nothingness" is used to support the idea that there must have been a first cause or prime mover that initiated the creation of the universe.

3. Is this argument considered a valid proof for the existence of God?

The validity of this argument is a matter of debate among philosophers and theologians. Some argue that the cosmological argument is a strong proof for the existence of God, while others believe that it has its flaws and limitations. Ultimately, the validity of this argument depends on one's personal beliefs and interpretation of evidence.

4. What are some criticisms of this argument?

Some criticisms of this argument include the assumption that something cannot come from nothing, the lack of evidence for the existence of a supernatural being or God, and the possibility of an infinite regress of causes. Additionally, some argue that this argument does not necessarily prove the existence of a specific deity or God, but rather a higher power or prime mover.

5. How does science view this argument for the existence of God?

Science and religion have often been viewed as conflicting, and as a scientist, it is important to approach this argument with an open mind and critical thinking. While science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, many scientists view the cosmological argument as a philosophical or metaphysical concept rather than a scientific one. Ultimately, the acceptance of this argument may vary among individuals and their personal beliefs.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
924
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
813
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
910
Replies
1
Views
817
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
16K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
659
Back
Top