William Lane Craig seems like the question of the Universe's ultimate origins is his "last straw"; modern science has pushed god all the way back to "the beginning" and the remaining "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is the last major argument in the theist's quiver, ignoring, of course, the fact as to why atheists should substitute one mystery (the origin of the Cosmos) for an even greater mystery (the origin of an infinite, omnipotent god).

In reflecting upon this, I have come to the conclusion that to ask the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is equivalent to asking, "What color is Saturday?"  It is a nonsensical question.  The idea of "nothing" can only have one and only one definition, "The absence of anything and everything."  But even if we grant such a conceptualization, is the statement 2 + 2 = 4 still a true statement?  After all, why does 2 + 2 equal 4 make sense as opposed to 2 + 2 equaling 5, 6, or some other number?  And, when did 2 + 2 = 4 become a true statement?  Did god make it true?  If so, could god make 2 + 2 equal to something other than 4?  As for me, I cannot comprehend 2 + 2 equaling anything other than 4.

That some eternal, uncaused, timeless, omnipotent being decreed that 2 + 2 = 4 as being true is akin to asking if god can make a rock so big that he cannot lift it.  If anyone is going to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is true because "god said it's true," then one might as well appeal to reality being some computer simulation where the alien programmer has simply coded 2 + 2 = 4 as part of his program.  As with the Euthyphro dilemma, belief in god is optional; we  don't need god to tell us that love is good, and we can add and subtract equally well.

Of course, if mathematical truths exist as immutable truths of their own (and, who can imagine otherwise), then "nothing" is clearly, "not nothing".  Even if there is no matter, energy, fields, space, time or any type of conscious minds, 2 + 2 = 4 is still true; it does not "become true" just because someone comes around to recognize it as such.  For instance, Pluto was a planet (or, at least, a planetoid) long, long before it was discovered; it was there long before Galileo pointed his telescope towards distant space.  Likewise, the Pythagorean theorem was just as true 2 .5 billion years ago as it was 2500 years ago.

If numbers are immutable and adding them is also immutable, then "come one, come all" must be true, which means that every mathematical proof ever made, if correct, belongs to a realm of immutable truths.  Now, if I can add numbers, I can add infinitesimal lines, areas and volumes, the basis of modern calculus and mathematical physics, the basis of quantum mechanics and general relativity.  But if the mathematics underlying quantum mechanics is true and immutable, then quantum mechanics must also be true and immutable, even if it is, at present, understood imperfectly.  And, quantum mechanics teaches us that reality must exist.

To quote Mr. Spock from the third season Star Trek episode, Spectre of the Gun:

KIRK: Spock, you've got something?
SPOCK: A fact, Captain. Physical laws simply cannot be ignored. Existence cannot be without them.
MCCOY: What do you mean, Spock?
SPOCK: I mean, Doctor, that we are faced with a staggering contradiction. The tranquilliser you created should have been effective.
KIRK: It would've been effective anywhere else.
SPOCK: Exactly. Doctor, in your opinion, what killed Mister Chekov?
MCCOY: A piece of lead in his body.
SPOCK: Wrong. His mind killed him.
MCCOY: Come on, Spock. If you've got the answer, tell us.
SPOCK: Physical reality is consistent with universal laws. Where the laws do not operate, there is no reality. All of this is unreal.

Indeed, if god exists, then the Cosmos could be a place of complete and total magic, that is, no physical laws of any kind!  And, indeed, it seems reasonable that if a god truly existed we could expect much more magic than we see.  But, all that we ever see is universal laws operating on the very small to the very large, governed by mathematical equations.  If mathematical truths exist which govern these mathematical equations, then quantum mechanics is necessarily true, which means that "nothing" cannot exist.  Just as it is impossible to get any substance down to a temperature which is exactly absolute zero, so, too it is impossible for there to be a state where there is no matter, no energy, no fields, no space and no time.  In short, the Cosmos and Universe exists because not only can they exist, they must exist; it is impossible for them not to exist.

To answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is because "nothing" is a state of mathematical and physical impossibility.

Empty universes don't have beings in them, such as us, to attempt to explain things.

Holy crap, that was a long post.  tl;dr

Have you tried learning a bit more about big bang cosmology? I am currently listening to Sean Carroll, and there's quite a bit of physics that goes on with the 'something from nothing' question. Additionally, you may find it difficult for 2+2 to equal something other than 4, but there are other concepts and physical laws that may be different.

What's that about numbers and mathematics existing outside of reality? 

To OP: do some research on symmetry breaking.  It gives a good explanation on why there is something rather than nothing.  There is a documentary on curiositystream.com (netflix for documentaries) called the ultimate formula and it explains the concept pretty well to the non-mathematician (like me).

There is a good book about why there is something rather than nothing, namely A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

(February 16, 2016 at 3:48 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: There is a good book about why there is something rather than nothing, namely A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

I can back that up. It's a great book indeed.

(February 15, 2016 at 10:00 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

---

William Lane Craig seems like the question of the Universe's ultimate origins is his "last straw"; modern science has pushed god all the way back to "the beginning" and the remaining "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is the last major argument in the theist's quiver, ignoring, of course, the fact as to why atheists should substitute one mystery (the origin of the Cosmos) for an even greater mystery (the origin of an infinite, omnipotent god).

In reflecting upon this, I have come to the conclusion that to ask the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is equivalent to asking, "What color is Saturday?"  It is a nonsensical question.  The idea of "nothing" can only have one and only one definition, "The absence of anything and everything."  But even if we grant such a conceptualization, is the statement 2 + 2 = 4 still a true statement?  After all, why does 2 + 2 equal 4 make sense as opposed to 2 + 2 equaling 5, 6, or some other number?  And, when did 2 + 2 = 4 become a true statement?  Did god make it true?  If so, could god make 2 + 2 equal to something other than 4?  As for me, I cannot comprehend 2 + 2 equaling anything other than 4.

That some eternal, uncaused, timeless, omnipotent being decreed that 2 + 2 = 4 as being true is akin to asking if god can make a rock so big that he cannot lift it.  If anyone is going to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is true because "god said it's true," then one might as well appeal to reality being some computer simulation where the alien programmer has simply coded 2 + 2 = 4 as part of his program.  As with the Euthyphro dilemma, belief in god is optional; we  don't need god to tell us that love is good, and we can add and subtract equally well.

Of course, if mathematical truths exist as immutable truths of their own (and, who can imagine otherwise), then "nothing" is clearly, "not nothing".  Even if there is no matter, energy, fields, space, time or any type of conscious minds, 2 + 2 = 4 is still true; it does not "become true" just because someone comes around to recognize it as such.  For instance, Pluto was a planet (or, at least, a planetoid) long, long before it was discovered; it was there long before Galileo pointed his telescope towards distant space.  Likewise, the Pythagorean theorem was just as true 2 .5 billion years ago as it was 2500 years ago.

If numbers are immutable and adding them is also immutable, then "come one, come all" must be true, which means that every mathematical proof ever made, if correct, belongs to a realm of immutable truths.  Now, if I can add numbers, I can add infinitesimal lines, areas and volumes, the basis of modern calculus and mathematical physics, the basis of quantum mechanics and general relativity.  But if the mathematics underlying quantum mechanics is true and immutable, then quantum mechanics must also be true and immutable, even if it is, at present, understood imperfectly.  And, quantum mechanics teaches us that reality must exist.

To quote Mr. Spock from the third season Star Trek episode, Spectre of the Gun:

KIRK: Spock, you've got something?
SPOCK: A fact, Captain. Physical laws simply cannot be ignored. Existence cannot be without them.
MCCOY: What do you mean, Spock?
SPOCK: I mean, Doctor, that we are faced with a staggering contradiction. The tranquilliser you created should have been effective.
KIRK: It would've been effective anywhere else.
SPOCK: Exactly. Doctor, in your opinion, what killed Mister Chekov?
MCCOY: A piece of lead in his body.
SPOCK: Wrong. His mind killed him.
MCCOY: Come on, Spock. If you've got the answer, tell us.
SPOCK: Physical reality is consistent with universal laws. Where the laws do not operate, there is no reality. All of this is unreal.

Indeed, if god exists, then the Cosmos could be a place of complete and total magic, that is, no physical laws of any kind!  And, indeed, it seems reasonable that if a god truly existed we could expect much more magic than we see.  But, all that we ever see is universal laws operating on the very small to the very large, governed by mathematical equations.  If mathematical truths exist which govern these mathematical equations, then quantum mechanics is necessarily true, which means that "nothing" cannot exist.  Just as it is impossible to get any substance down to a temperature which is exactly absolute zero, so, too it is impossible for there to be a state where there is no matter, no energy, no fields, no space and no time.  In short, the Cosmos and Universe exists because not only can they exist, they must exist; it is impossible for them not to exist.

---

Quote:To answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is because "nothing" is a state of mathematical and physical impossibility.

Where do you think gold came from?

(February 16, 2016 at 4:15 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Where do you think gold came from?

It came from a supernova explosion of a star; point is that the star was brewing hydrogen into helium from millions to billions of years prior to that.