Something can't come from nothing

[nobspeople]

Recently I saw someone elsewhere make the comment, in regards to how 'the universe came to be', that you can't get something (the universe as it is today) from nothing (from before the universe existed), only to go on and say something similar to 'god is the beginning and the end', in reference to creating the universe.
I found it hypocritical to say one believes 'something can't come from nothing' and, at the same time, say 'god created the universe', appearing to mean god was here before anything and thus, came from nothing (as the person making this statement seemed to believe god was here before anything else - seemingly 'coming from nothing').

For discussion:
Where did god come from?
How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?
For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #16

While the idea is counter-intuitive, that can't be conclusively ruled out. At the quantum level, there are certain phenomena that give that impression. Furthermore, our current physical laws are not currently sufficient to describe the singularity generally thought to exist at the 'start' of the universe, so further speculation is just that - speculation.

No physical law can make something come from nothing, because if there's a physical law then there isn't "nothing". In addition, physical laws are not things in themselves; they're merely descriptions of the ways in which physical forces interact. So in order for there to be physical laws, there have to be physical things with behavior for those laws to determine.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #16
No physical law can make something come from nothing, because if there's a physical law then there isn't "nothing". In addition, physical laws are not things in themselves; they're merely descriptions of the ways in which physical forces interact. So in order for there to be physical laws, there have to be physical things with behavior for those laws to determine.

I would reword this slightly:

No physical law can currently describe something coming from nothing, and physical laws are not things in themselves; they're predictive descriptions of the ways in which physical forces interact.

[Diagoras]

The universe cannot have created itself, because that would require it to have pre-existed itself. Since the universe can't be its own origin, its origin must lie in something else.

Even if the universe has always existed, there's still the question of why it has ever existed. Logically, it shouldn't have to. And any material explanation for its existence would just be part of the material universe we're trying to explain and, thus, not an adequate answer.

God cannot have created itself, because that would require it to have pre-existed itself. Since God can't be its own origin, its origin must lie in something else.

Even if God has always existed, there's still the question of why it has ever existed. Logically, it shouldn't have to. And any supernatural explanation for its existence would be immaterial to the material universe we're trying to explain and, thus, not an adequate answer.

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #23]

Even if God has always existed, there's still the question of why it has ever existed. Logically, it shouldn't have to.

Perhaps you have the cart before the horse?

Please explain your logic as to why the existence of God should have to be?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to William in post #24]

Or 'universe', if you prefer.

[William]

Okay. So why is its existence illogical?

[TRANSPONDER]

Okay. So why is its existence illogical?

For the same reason - whether one says 'god' (cosmic mind) or universe (cosmic matter'.

In both case the existence of either in inexplicable (logically) without an origin from nothing. It's very simple.

The only difference is that in order to avoid the incohgerencies counter -intuitives and improbablilities of an eternal uncreated thing, or infinite recession, one has to poisit a thing coming from nothing and the less work it has to do for that to happen the less improbable it would be. For a something just to have physical properties is one thing, for that stuff to become as intelligent as a cosmic mind multiplies logical entities and therefor is less logical.

Not saying not true, because nobody knows (not even the Theists, who claim they do know) but it is a less logical hypothesis. Just is.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #20]

Since you yourself admit that "eternity" isn't a concept which humans can understand, why couldn't a creator always have existed?

I'm not saying it could or couldn't have existed. I'm asking how one would know.

The universe cannot have created itself, because that would require it to have pre-existed itself.

They same can be levied against god: god cannot have created itself, because that would require it to have pre-existed itself. At least according to many. Unless, of course, god gets exempted from this with 'special' rules and the like.

And any material explanation for its existence would just be part of the material universe we're trying to explain and, thus, not an adequate answer.

Not adequate to whom, exactly?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

How is it 'logical' to assume 'magic' when magic is the very thing which proposes something coming from nothing?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #28

They same can be levied against god: god cannot have created itself, because that would require it to have pre-existed itself. At least according to many. Unless, of course, god gets exempted from this with 'special' rules and the like.

If causality applies to a creator, then it unavoidably applies to the universe. And while a universe shouldn't have to exist, or to always have existed, the same may not be true of a creator.

Not adequate to whom, exactly?

Not logically adequate.