Magic Shows Are Lies, Big Bang From Nothing Is Truth?

[behnam1999]

A man making coins vanish is ridiculous, but nothing making everything appear? Sure, makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

Just as a point of clarification, almost no reputable scientist, anywhere, claims that the big bang is "truth", nor do they claim that the universe began from "nothing". Your premise is fundamentally incorrect.

It is called the big bang theory, which is just that; a theory, which is literally an unproven hypothesis that happens to be supported by current scientific evidence. It isn't a universal truth, because our knowledge is always evolving and changing.

The current theory is also that the universe wasn't empty prior to the big bang, either. It is currently believed that the universe existed in a "high energy state" prior to the big bang, and that the big bang was simply the transition point where the universe began changing from what it was, into what it is now. It wasn't simply "nothingness" prior to that point.

Most scientists will also admit that our knowledge of the prior state of the universe is spotty, at best, because the laws of physics, as we know them, break down at that point. They literally admit that we don't know, definitively, what it was like at that point. Hence why none of them call it a "truth."

[behnam1999]

Fair enough. I’m aware that the Big Bang is a theory, not an absolute “truth.” But even if we accept the “high energy state” before it, the core question remains: why does anything exist at all, rather than nothing?

Energy, matter, and even the “laws of physics” can’t just exist without explanation. If they had a beginning, they need a cause; if they have no beginning, they still need a reason for their necessary existence.

That cause must be timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, and uncaused, which is exactly what people mean by God. Scientific models can describe how change happens, but not why there is something instead of nothing in the first place.

[Opinion Owner]

I have no idea why anything exists, and neither does anyone else. Some day, we may be able to explain where existence comes from, but we currently don't have the scientific knowlege to do so.

However, the lack of a undeniable scientific proof is, by itself, not evidence of a supreme being, or a "God", either. It's entirely possible that there was, in fact, some form of an eternal entity that created everything, but that theory suffers from the same failing as the big bang theory, in that it can't be proven, either.

It's also possible that our entire existence is nothing more than a simulation running on some alien computer, or a 5th grade alien science experiment in school. We just don't know, and we may never know with 100% certainty. I simply choose to follow the evidence, and as it stands, the big bang theory is the only one thst can be supported, if not proven, by science.

If, some day, there is verifiable evidence of a supreme being, or a higher power of some sort, then I will adjust my views. I just can't accept a "God" as a reasonable explanation without supporting evidence.

[behnam1999]

I agree that lack of scientific knowledge doesn’t automatically prove God. My point is that God isn’t being proposed as a “mystery filler,” but as the only explanation that doesn’t collapse into deeper questions.

Even the “simulation” or “alien experiment” ideas you mentioned would still require an ultimate cause, something eternal, necessary, and self-existent. Whether you call that “God” or not, that’s the concept I’m pointing to.

Science deals with things within the universe and how they behave. But the question “Why does anything exist at all?” is a philosophical and metaphysical question, and you can’t use scientific tools to answer it, just like you can’t use a thermometer to measure the weight of a rock.

If you say “we just don’t know,” you’re still left with only two options:

1. An eternal necessary reality that explains itself (which is what theists call God).

2. Reality that came from nothing for no reason, which is logically incoherent.

It’s not about waiting for “evidence” in the same way you wait for lab results, it’s about following the logic to the necessary conclusion.

[Opinion Owner]

Except that God is being proposed as a mystery filler.

That's the whole problem with the concept of using God to explain the origin of reality. There's absolutely nothing to support such a claim, so it is logically incoherent, as well. The whole concept of a God defies logic, by it's very nature. That's precisely why the concept of God exists within the realm of faith, because it isn't supported by logic, at all.

If one were to accept the concept that God does exist, and did create everything, that raises just as many questions as reality being created from nothing. It actually raises nearly the exact same questions. Where did God come from? How was He brought into existence?

Both the big bang theory, and the concept of a God, rely on the same basic premise: how do either of them exist in nothingness. People claim that God is all powerful to avoid the complication of explanation. Whereas science honestly admits "we don't know yet," faith skirts the issue by saying "God is beyond our understanding," or some similar argument, when, in reality, it's nearly the same response. The primary difference is that science seeks to gain more information, and the belief in God doesn't.

If a person believes in a God, that's their prerogative; I don't have a way to disprove that belief. My point is that, of the proposed theories for the creation of existence, we only have evidence for one of them, however incomplete, and so that is the one that's closest to a logical explanation.

[behnam1999]

I understand your concern, but I’m not using “God” as a placeholder for ignorance. I’m saying that some reality must exist necessarily, without a cause or nothing could exist now. That’s not faith filling a gap, it’s a logical requirement.

The “Where did God come from?” question assumes God is a contingent being like the universe. But the whole point of a necessary being is that it is uncaused and eternal by nature, it doesn’t “come from” anywhere, just as a triangle doesn’t “come from” having three sides.

Yes, science admits “we don’t know yet”, but science deals with physical processes within reality. The origin of reality itself is a different category of question: you can’t run a lab test to find out why there’s something rather than nothing.

We both agree there must be an ultimate reality, eternal, uncaused, and the source of everything else. The only disagreement is whether that reality is mindless and impersonal, or intelligent and personal (which is what theists call God).

[Opinion Owner]

"But the whole point of a necessary being is that it is uncaused and eternal by nature, it doesn’t “come from” anywhere."

This is where the problem lies; in this type of statement. Your own argument that the universe can not exist from nothing would contradicts this as a supporting argument. You can't claim that God is eternal, because he's God, while simultaneously claiming the same can't be true of the universe.

Your original point is that nothing can come from nothing, but apparently God can? That's a contrary point, but you're defying logical argument by claiming God is an exception when there's no evidence that God even exists, in the first place.

God is simply a stop gap explanation for things humans can't readily explain.
Thousands of years ago, humans believed that lightning, earthquakes, and volcanoes were caused by God. Once we gained the scientific knowlege to explain those phenomena, the explanation that they were caused by God faded into obscurity. That nature of reality is simply an extension of that concept.

As far as lab tests proving something came from nothing, you're forgetting my original post. Science doesn't believe that the universe came from nothing. Current evidence suggests that the big bang merely altered the state of the reality from a mass of energy, to having matter, as well. Energy isn't nothing.

[behnam1999]

I’m not claiming “God can be eternal but the universe can’t” as a special exception. My point is that something must be eternal and necessary, otherwise we end up with an infinite regress of causes or with “something from nothing.” The question is which candidate fits that role best: mindless matter/energy or an intelligent necessary being.

If you say the universe (or a prior energy state) is eternal, you still need to explain why it exists at all, and why its nature makes it impossible for it not to exist. That’s the same standard I’m applying to God.

The “lightning and earthquakes” example is about causes within the universe. Science is brilliant at explaining those. But the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” isn’t about events inside reality, it’s about the existence of reality itself. That’s not a gap science is slowly closing; it’s a category of question science isn’t equipped to answer.

As for the prior energy state, fine, but calling it “energy” doesn’t solve the issue. Whether you call the eternal necessary reality “God” or “energy,” you’re still acknowledging that there is something uncaused and necessary. The only difference is whether you think that ultimate reality is personal and intelligent, or not.

[Nikki1989]

Magic shows are a type of deceptive entertainment. The “magic” isn't real; it's a carefully crafted illusion designed to trick the audience.

The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, is a scientific model. It is an explanation based on a wealth of evidence gathered through observation and experimentation.

[behnam1999]

What about someone with a magic wand turning people into frogs? If things can happen out of nothing, and big bang happened without any reason, then why wouldn't we say something like that could also happen?

[jahaims]

Good attempt at using logic

[behnam1999]

Thanks! But notice the irony: you laugh at a man making with a wand turning people into frogs, yet accept the claim that nothing made everything. If magic is impossible, how is it more “logical” to believe in spontaneous creation from nothing?

Something must exist necessarily to explain the universe, which is exactly what we call God.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Dude, are you good?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

I don't know who pissed in your cheerios but maybe go yell off a cliff instead of being a pill

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

See? Salty as hell over trying to answer an impossible question. Why do you like torturing yourself so much?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Why would I attempt to answer not only the impossible question of “what existed before existence as we know it?” But also this bullshit question you asked as a result of the bad mood that came about because you had to face the lack of intellect you want to believe you and other humans have?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

If I tell you “I don’t know” as an answer, would that work?