EXPLAIN THIS: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
Here’s a question for you: Why is there something — you, me, the Universe — rather than nothing — zero, zilch, ain’t anything anywhere? Martin Heidegger is credited with formulating that specific question, but other philosophers have been pondering the issue since ancient times.
Photo by K. Mitch Hodge on Unsplash
Aristotle, for instance, defined “nothing” as “what rocks think about.” If you’ve ever known any rocks, you can appreciate just how accurate Aristotle was because rocks don’t think.
Aristotle’s definition is also important because it more precisely clarifies the alternatives involved. Nothing means nothing. No molecules of any kind, no forces of any sort, no primordial soup, and no quantum particularities. There is just nothing.
There isn’t even the word!
Once you realize that nothing actually does mean nothing, you begin to grasp the importance of the question, especially as it relates to the long-running debate between evolutionists and creationists.
There is a myth that all Christians oppose Darwinian evolutionary theory in any form because “the Bible says it, God did it, I believe it and that settles it.” That is a classic illustration of the straw man argument – the evolutionist advocate describes a purposely flawed and easily discredited version of your opponent’s argument and then attributes it to all who have legitimate questions for evolution for any reason.
There are in fact Christians who consider themselves “Theistic Evolutionists” or “Old-Earth Creationists,” that is, they believe in the God of creation and that evolution is the tool He used to populate the Earth with a multiplicity of species.
I don’t necessarily agree with every aspect of the Theistic Evolution/Old-Earth Creation approach, but I respect it as a logical solution to the fundamental problem posed by evolutionary theory that more than a few evolutionists cannot seem to grasp:
The process of evolution requires at least one atom of matter either to exist eternally, or somehow to come into existence, in order for the processes of macro and micro evolution to begin, but evolutionary theory has no explanation for the origin of that first atom.
And therein lies my fundamental problem with more than a few evolutionists. In my experience, sincerely posing these kinds of questions to them typically results in complicated but evasive responses, ad hominem mis-characterizations, or outright insults.
As a result, I can empathize with Diogenes, who supposedly wandered around classical Athens, lamp in hand, searching for one honest man. I am looking for one honest evolutionist who will directly respond to the origins issue.
When I find him or her, I may not agree with the explanation offered, but at least I will have found what Diogenes apparently never did.
So, here’s the basic question, again: Why is there something rather than nothing? Please do feel free to respond in the comments.
So, it is your contention that unless science can answer the question about how the whole current universe came about, you won’t accept its answer about how life started on this planet? Even though there is far more evidence for how life began here than there is for how the whole universe began? Or that science isn’t about the why so much as it is about the how and then when? Or that science DOES have an answer for how the universe began (imperfect though it might be).
“it is your contention that unless science can answer the question about how the whole current universe came about, you won’t accept its answer about how life started on this planet?”
That’s a fine example of the straw-man method of argument he described.
John, the question at issue is why is there something rather than nothing? Your two questions are dependant upon the answer to my question.
“… there is far more evidence for how life began here than there is for how the whole universe began?” Such as?
I came to this question in school when I told evolutionists that they ultimately believe the same thing as creationists … they would always ask if God created life then where did God come from and they said that creationists answered with “He was always there” i.e. a belief … so I posed a variation of the same question to them … “Where did the matter for the big bang come from ?” and the answer they usually came too was “It was always there” … i.e. a belief … same question, same answer …
There are plenty of things for which no scientific answer has yet been found. Honest scientists acknowledge this, and will usually respond with something like, “we don’t know yet.” I have seen a few suggestions for the origin of the Big Bang, mostly having to do with the basic question of why there is so much more matter than anti-matter, and that depends on more that is not yet known about quantum mechanics.
A religious answer, on the other hand, must deal with trying to understand why God would have chosen to create the universe, which pushes it into the realm of philosophy. I have seen some satisfying answers and some not so, but given that it comes down to His motivation, that puts it in the question of what He has revealed and wishes us to know.
Ultimately, there is really no clear answer.
Does this mean you have investigated the evidence for the claim the Bible is in the inspired word of God and concluded that it is not?
I believe strongly that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I am also aware both that others disagree, and that there is a fair bit of disagreement as to what the words of the Bible mean, in terms of what we are to do and to believe.
I also believe that I have muffed commenting here. I thought I had already typed this reply…
No, I don’t think you muffed anything here, Aaron. The reason I posed the question I did to you is this: If you accept the Bible is the Word of God and Truth, then there really is an answer to the original question posed by this post. God created the universe out of nothing. That people disagree about the meaning of particular passages of Scripture does not, however, thereby put the right answer beyond intelligibility. On basic issues, there is a vast degree of unanimity in Christendom.
Apart from Darwin, the most famous supporters of evolution do not have children, or in the rare cases that they do, they never have more than one child. If you believe in evolution, fight for it, teach it, but don’t have children, you are making a very strong statement. Evolution is a cuckoo’s egg. Evolutionists don’t teach it to their children, they teach it to other people’s children, so that other people’s children have the same fitness as themselves.
As for why is there something, the atheists answered that adequately a long time ago. It’s selection bias. If there was nothing, we wouldn’t be here to discuss it, so we only see the sample where there is something (us), we never see any of the samples where there are nothing because there wouldn’t be any observers to see it.
But that’s precisely my point – There is something and either it’s eternally existing, which is impossible to confirm, or it had a beginning, in which case it must have a cause, which points to God, the Big Bang, the multiverse theory or something else. If you posit a process by which matter develops over time, why would you not want to know how it came to be in the first place?
There is the possibility of “and” here.
Matter can be eternally existing and the organization of it by God. They’re not mutually exclusive ideas.
True and that was the view of the Greeks. But in view of the fact the universe is accelerating away from a central point, I think the Big Bang-therefore-the-universe-had-a-beginning is a more reasonable explanation.
That’s not a new question, It goes way back to the problem of Evil, as in “why is there Evil?”.
It cannot be answered, because that requires stepping outside the Universe. It is the fish’s question: why is there water?
Occamites might argue that “Nothing” is a much simpler state, and therefore preferable.
The Real Question is not Why, but How did there come to be Something? After we get through that, then we can ask Why..
Interesting response, Mike. Why in your view is “the real question” the how question rather than the why question?
> I am looking for one honest evolutionist who will directly respond to the origins issue.
Honesty dictates the answer is, “I don’t know”. Both camps must say the same. We are very small beings in a very big universe, and we understand neither the motive force nor the motive action behind it. I believe science answers the question by flying a JWST out there to see to within 200 million years of the first guessable action. When they collect that data, they will try something to look more deeply. Our Christianity says “God” and calls the question answered.
I’d much rather receive a direct email than argue further out here, but your question is an interesting one.
I suppose “I don’t know” would be a perfectly acceptable answer. Then you could give the evidences for your claim rather than trying shift the burden of proof. That would be a more honest way of discussing.
Barabbas Me, forgive me for being so dense, but why do you think by posing my question I am “shifting the burden of proof?”
Im sure if you think about it some, in context of possible charges from atheists of “God of the gaps” and “argument from ignorance” you’ll figure it out. You seem to be trying to get non believers to prove how it could be otherwise than “God created” when its your claim to demonstrate rather than their burden to disprove. Honesty doesn’t only say “I don’t know” but it also accepts responsibility for supporting your own claims, not turning it around on the other guy to disprove it before hand. Hope that helps
If, as you suggest, I seem to be trying to force non-believer to defend or “prove” a particular alternative to the “God created from nothing” view, that is not my intention. I am asking the question — why is there something rather than nothing? — because I genuinely desire to hear from those who think evolutionary theory accounts for “everything” how they think it accounts for creation ex nihilo.
Evolution is just diversity of Life. Doesn’t speak to the creation of the cosmos. And they don’t have to be able to answer those to justify their not believing in God. Your question is leading into a God of the Gaps and Argument from Ignorance. It’s a bit “dodgy” even if you dont intend it to be.
Long and short brother, theyre not that “naive” to not see thru your “genuine desire” to debate the physics of cosmology with them. If I as a fellow chriatian can see thru it then surely they can. Change your tack, brother. – barabbas
But I see you seem to be deleting my comments now, so I’ll leave you be. Cheers and be well. In Christ. – Barabbas.
Barabbas, WP is not allowing me to respond to your three most recent comments, so I am inserting them here after your most recent comment. No, I almost never delete anybody’s comment. As it says in HillFaith’s Comment Policy, the only occasion for deleting a comment is when it insults, curses or libels somebody. Obviously, none of your comments here fall under any of those categories.
Now, I confess that I simply don’t get your point, though I appreciate you making it in an effort to help a fellow believer. My point in posing the Heidegger question is that whenever I am told by evolutionary advocates that Darwinian theory accounts for everything, including the origin of life on Earth, it seems necessary to account for the origins of the physical materials that make up the first living cell. I only see two possible answers, either the material is eternal or it had a beginning. How you account for that beginning is the question on which I am seeking to shine light. Perhaps that simply reflects my inability to grasp what you are trying to communicate, but in any case, thanks for engaging the issue and please do not give up commenting on whatever strikes you as worthy of comment here on HillFaith. – MT,7:22 am, Aug. 2.
1. Why is the biosphere the way it is? What is its history? For these questions, we turn to biologists as the subject matter specialists. Evolution offers the best explanations we have thus far.
2. Why is the third rock from the sun the way it is? What planetary conditions would have been observed as life developed? Here, we turn to physicists and geologists as the subject matter specialists who can offer explanations.
3. How did life get going anyway? Whatever the specific explanation turns out to be, we can expect it will involve naturally-occurring conditions, properties, and processes. Discovery will be a multidisciplinary scientific effort.
4. Why is there something, rather than nothing? Whoa — Now we have stumbled squarely into the realm of philosophical and/or religious speculation. Scientists (as scientists) are of no help here, because the question itself is not a scientific question: It has nothing to do with physics, biology, or any scientific discipline; it is not tractable by empirical means; indeed it goes to the very mystery of existence. And since it’s not a question that scientists can address, I’d suggest it has no bearing on the validity of their work.
Why do you assume science has nothing to say about why matter exists? That is an assumption, not a fact, on which you are basing your claim that the explanation for life “will involve naturally-occurring conditions, properties and processes.” My view assumes science is capable of deducing possible conclusions from observable characteristics and without prior assumptions that rule out any particular possibility. I note as well that when you come to your fourth point, you seem to be saying that philosophy and/or religion are only capable of “speculation,” as opposed to the definitive factual conclusions of science. You are demonstrating a classic 19th Century secular materialist view that science alone can provide truth, while philosophy, metaphysics and theology are mere opinion or, to use your word, speculation.
My earlier comment was trying to show that an explanation of the development of life on earth does not need to explain why the earth exists — and much less does it need to account for existence itself. Those are fascinating and important questions, but they’re superfluous for talking about how biological life developed (and ultimately how it got going in the first place).
The bottom line is this: As far as I can tell, with respect to “Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing,” you are absolutely free to take any position you would like. Whatever position you take, it changes nothing in the evolutionary story, and has no bearing on the validity of that story.
But let’s rewind. While you “don’t necessarily agree with every aspect of the Theistic Evolution/Old-Earth Creation approach,” you do seem willing to accept, at some level, that there is no necessary conflict between Christian belief and evolutionary theory. So far so good. So what exactly are your objections to “theistic evolution”?
(I’m sorry if this post is duplicated. I tried posting several times yesterday with no apparent result.)