@@ToddJambon right, I hope to learn something, but always disappointed in these Christian videos that pretend to use philosophy. I will not be watching any more of this persons content (I hope he gets better).
Lawrence Krauss is a brilliant involuntary comedian. I remember when he presented the book, he was literally laughing at anyone who thought a universe from nothing presupposes a supernatural cause. Then he started explaining what he actually meant by 'nothing', and comedy was never the same again... Thank you, Lawrence.
@@ossiedunstan4419 'super,' meaning above. 'Natural' from nature meaning the physical world. Literally everyone Joe quotes here realizes there is evidence for designed physical laws. Why do they exist? For the same reason Stephen Hawkins' book exists, because there is a designer. This is literally the point of the video, you should watch it.
I've always found it very humorous that scientists feel that they have to explain to you why your "question" is incorrect. When pressed, the best they can come up with is, your question (as you've defined the terms) isn't open to a scientific explanation. THAT'S OUR POINT!!
So how did you go about determining that something is in fact there if it cannot be validated through science or evades the human senses to detect it? THAT'S OUR POINT
@@sandrajackson709 Glad you asked. It's possible to logically conclude of the existence of something that we don’t directly observe. You see footprints, and you reason logically from the imprint you observe to the shoe that you don’t observe. This is how scientists can theorize about events outside of the scope of our sensory experience (events long ago, or far away). Somewhat similarly, Mendeleev could predict the existence of four then-unknown elements based on the “gaps” in the periodic table. If you see a train rushing past, you might only see boxcars, but you logically conclude that there’s an engine of some kind powering the train, since boxcars can’t power themselves. The material world is like a boxcar. It can’t explain its own existence or motion, so we know that there’s an “engine” powering it and keeping it in motion (and existence), even though we (obviously) don’t observe God as one element in that material world.
@@shamelesspopery Does not answer the question.When I see footprints it's only logical to assume because I know feets exists. Scientist rely on observation and make a hypothesis, expirement, analyze data, and conclude from the data Nothing at all comparable to just speculating the existence of a god for it does nothing to satisfy the question is something in fact there. You simply do not get to conclude something is there by reasoning that it is there. It gives you no possible way to know that it is there for you to bring it up to a scientist. The question was not about what you believe is there, what you can best reason is there but is something actually there and showing that it is. You cannot reasons something into existence. Your reasoning means nothing if you cannot show you reasoned right. You have no follow through method and just stop at reasoning
@@sandrajackson709Because there's more to existence than just material things [and science can only go as far in this regard]. That's the ultimate point.
@@GranMaese Can you show me anything beyond just the material that is without a material cause? If not through science what reliable method do you have to go about demonstrating this conclusion?
I'm very much reminded of the story that Richard Feynman liked to tell about how to get yellow paint from white and red paint. Paraphrasing, Feynman was sitting at a cafe one day and struck up a conversation with a guy who was painting a room in the building upstairs, and the guy starts talking about how it's important to know how to mix paint to get the right colors and then explained that to get yellow paint, he would mix red and white paint together. This surprised Feynman, who didn't see how this could be possible, but couldn't figure out why this guy, who did this sort of thing for a living, would lie about something like this, asked him to show him how to get yellow colored paint from mixing red and white paint. So the guy got some red and white paint and began mixing it together, and he would put more red in, and then more white in, but it still just looked pink, no matter what he did, it wasn't yellow. Until eventually the guy said "now I just need to add a little bit of yellow from this tube here to sharpen it up a bit and then it'll be yellow."
Love this quote from Terence McKenna. It's always written as "limit test," but I'm pretty sure he would have said "litmus test."" "The sober men of science are saying the universe sprang from nothing, for no reason. This is the litmus test for credulity! Science is saying, 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' I'll take mine at the end, thank you. They have the big bang, I have the big surprise."
Your clarity it's really unmatched. I started a bible study at my parish, and I'm trying to incorporate everything I can from your videos! Thanks for everything!
Good video as always. A minor nitpick, though it doesn't really affect the validity of your criticism: M-Theory doesn't refer to "multiverse theory". M-theory is the *hypothetical* general physical theory that unifies the 5 distinct Superstring Theories. This brings up an additional point that makes the argument put forward by Hawking and Mlodinow ridiculous: while there is certainly evidence that there is such a theory, its existence has not been rigorously established! So not only does M-Theory not answer the question, because it still requires the existence of Physical Law, as you've noted, but we don't even know what M-Theory is (if it exists) in a satisfactory way. And this doesn't even touch on the phenomenological issues, as it is not at all obvious at present that M-Theory could describe our universe. As far as the name goes, there isn't even agreement on what the M in M-Theory even stands for. It kind of just caught on and depending on who you ask you'll hear things like "membrane", "magic", "matrix", etc. It's actually a common joke in the field to say that once M-Theory is rigorously defined we'll finally know what the M stands for!
I think the issue with the question of why there is something rather than nothing is generally misused on both sides of the aisle. Atheists and Christians actually agree on the answer to this question in a fundamental sense. The answer is “because something has always existed.” For Christians that something that has always existed is God. For Atheists that something is whatever natural thing they believe to be eternal, be it quantum fields or whatever quantum fields originated from. Both sides agree that true nothingness only begets nothing. So the fact that anything exists at all must be because something has always existed.
I agree. I think this ultimately puts the Atheist in a difficult spot, because it means they need to explain how this “eternal stuff” that isn’t supernatural and is thus contingent, accounts for reality. It moves the scope of the explanation into the realm of philosophy, and Atheists seem to struggle to provide an elegant solution that isn’t ultimately reductive.
But Atheists may turn it around on Christians too. I don’t think they would concede that non-supernatural eternal stuff must be contingent anymore than a Christian would concede that supernatural eternal stuff is contingent. It is hard if not impossible via human reasoning to explain HOW anything can be eternal other than just declaring that it is. This would apply to Christians explaining the nature of God or Atheists explaining the nature of their “eternal stuff”. Both sides would affirm that something is is eternal and both sides would shrug their shoulders in trying to fully explain or even comprehend the nature of the infinite.
Exactly!!! Empty space is what you find in Genesis 1 as "void", that's actually part of creation, having a void is not nothing it's a void, empty space, "darkness over the face of the deep/abyss"
I am still a fan of Dawkins and Krauss for various reasons - I think they have offered a lot. But you are absolutely correct here about Krauss' confusion, and even his hubris, at least on this topic. A good reminder to always check your own arrogance and assumptions. Brilliant people are brilliant at fooling themselves.
@@ST-ov8cm the concept of nothing yes, it's much easier to understand, a 5 year old can get it. Vacuum is more complex, it requires the person to understand matter and energy, and also there's the issue that many people use it erroneously, saying vacuum when they actually mean reduced pressure. That's why I thought high school level would be more fitting to grasp all three.
Hahahahahahahah........simply superb Joe! with these fellas is ultimately down to pride. If our minds can't come up with the answer then one must humbly say I don't know or I can't answer that but thats a tough ask for them with their many many awards and accolades.
@@michaelanderson4849 Who are these great many philospohers and theologians you are referring ? Did they try to answer a scientific laws or theories ? did they write books about this area of study ?
As much as i enjoy all of Joe's videos, this one stands head and shoulders above all the others. Exposing Krause as the pompous, ill-informed scientist that he is was refreshing. This video is a masterpiece!
I really like watching these videos while I drink my morning coffee, it's a stimulating way to start the day. They challenge me and are engaging arguments that I may not have heard before. Keep up the great work!
Hey if nothing is something then send Krauss a bill for $100,000. And when he asks what it is for say, "Nothing." And when he balks at it say, "Nothing is not nothing, but something. And it is this something that I am charging you for."
Joe, thank you for the great video. In addition to the question posed here, I couldn't wrap my mind around the question "How do I lead a good life, what does it even mean to live Atheism consistently?" whenever thinking about Atheism. Maybe this touches of your fifth way about saints. As a German, I have one small point of consideration when it comes to pronunciation of the name 'Leibniz'. The German 'ei' is pronounced like the English 'ie'. If you would pronounce it like 'Liebniz' in English, it would be a perfect German pronunciation of the name.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't know. I don't believe anyone knows. There are people who believe they know, but it's just a belief and not knowledge. Knowledge should be demonstrable.
>I don't believe anyone knows. you're wrong. What would change your mind? >There are people who believe they know, but it's just a belief and not knowledge False. Knowlege is justified true belief, if I show you the justification for my belief and you find no flaws (besides maybe an irrational uneasiness in the conclusions) in it, you should accept it. >knowlege should be demonstrable it is. just not scientifically. There are many ways to demonstrate a claim without using an empirical method, for example we know that pi has infinitely many digits not because we checked, or counted them, but because we demonstrated logically there cannot possibly be a finite number of digits.
@@tafazzi-on-discord You are one of those who believes they know. I am familiar with every argument/notional idea/story in the last 4,500 years that try to demonstrate why there is something rather than nothing. None do that. That doesn't mean that what you believe is wrong, but it doesn't mean you are right either.
@@tinequeek9056 what if you misunderstood one or more of these arguments? I hope you keep in mind that's a possibility. So, would you agree to the following two things: 1-if something can't possibly fail to exist, that explains why nothing is metaphysically impossible 2-just like redness is red, existance exists.
Probably not much more than a half a dozen people (joking) can grasp the depth of the argument Joe is making here. Yet, he does it in a way that even I can understand it.
Why is irrelevant. The more interesting question is “How is there something rather than nothing?” FYI this question has literally nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods
you don't know? or you don't want to accept the answer? Because we DO know. We've known at least since Aristotle. You may not like the answer, but that's not the same thing ;-)
@@GustavoAndresHerrera I did mean "we don't know". What do you mean "we've known at least since Aristotle"? No, we really, really don't know why anything exists. It's a big mystery. And of course, many people *think* they've figured it out, but no......they have not. What "answer" do you think it is?
@@hongotedesco8931 Aristotle had figured out already that you need an immobile mover. There's a good book from Edward Feser that explains the main methods you can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. Read it, and you may still disagree afterwards, but you can't say "we have no good reason" to say logically that God exists.
Um... how do you know that because you don't know no one else can know? Saying "We don't know" is indeed simple, but an answer - correct or otherwise - it most definitely is not.
@@hongotedesco8931 we do know. There are people with a justified, true belief that is the answer to this question. It's false we don't know. I could say "we don't know whether a single jew died in the holocaust", and I'd be saying a falsehood. How does the I don't know above differ from yours?
Perhaps it's true that _some_ Atheists can't answer this question, but many Atheist philosophers have adequately responded to the type of argument you raise. I'd encourage reviewing the works of J.L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Stephen Maitzen, Adolf Grunbaum, and Bede Rundle. Rundle even has entire book _Why there is Something rather than Nothing_ dedicated to his entire question.
Joe watches Matt Fradd, Jonathan Frakes' X Factor and listens to Mountain Goats. :) At least according to the youtube suggestions. That is actually a nice song from Black Pear tree...
Hi Joe, I agree that basically all the responses from the athiests (who were sadly scientists and not philosophers sadly) were poor. I think the main problem with the existence argument is that premise 1 seems very hard to justify. I didn't catch the justification for that premise, could you clarify why you think it is true?
"Nothing" is vague, too. When I say "I know nothing," I might mean that I know about something the word "nothing" signifies. Before my brother shops for me, he may ask what else I need. But I won't say "The absence of anything."
While I agree with you that we can use the word "nothing" for an imprecise or metaphorical meaning, but replying "nothing" to "what do you need from the store" is actually a response of absence. There is an absence if items in the set of items which you need from the store.
I may not be a brilliant scientific or philosophical mind, but I at least know that there are smaller and larger infinities. But I'm prettyy sure there's just the one nothing. There's just one nothing. We just have the one nothing. Or... there just isn't one nothing, and we don't have it. There's that intelligence bit coming back up.
Why is there something rather than nothing? “God did it” is no different an answer than “We don’t know” except the latter doesn’t require one to believe in an imaginary being. Which God? Zeus? Ram? If one accepts that God can exist without cause then the universe can exist without cause. Why can we not accept that the honest answer is, “We don’t know.”
What difference does it make (at least for the purpose of the question) to ask for a precise monicker before you are willing to contemplate the Creator on which all things depend for existence.
An atheist saying NO, there was Not NOTHING, but instead some form of "SOMETHING", really just digs a deeper hole for themselves, in a number of ways. Most obviously, because the question would simply become....well OK, where did the "something" you magically believe in (talk about flying spaghetti monsters) come from, as the cause of no-thing, is found within itself! So, they just kicked the same can, a little further down the road!
It’s telling that the most well known modern atheistic arguments contain such a simple error. I bet there are some atheists out there that cringe when these seemingly brilliant thinkers fail so pitifully. It might be better to hold to atheism by faith than because of these books. I wonder if the authors believed their own words.
An atheist could reply that the universe is a logically necessary object, that you contradict yourself if you say there was a time when there was no universe. The nonbeing of a unicorn is something, It's the lack of a unicorn. Evil is a privation. It's the absence of something that should be present. But the word "should" could mislead us if it refers to natural evil instead of moral evil. Now that dinosaurs T. rex has died out, have we lost a kind of animal who should still be here on earth?
Atheists could answer the questions in these ways: 1. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe humans are incapable of understanding it. 2. Even if God did create the universe, that is a long way from proving the Christian conception of God.
There's another possible problem for Prof. Krauss. "Empty" is vague. If I tell my brother Dave that our refrigerator is empty, will he open the refrigerator door and say, "Billy, you lied. The shelves are still in it with the cold air and the lightbulb?" Of course not. He'll know I meant that we ran out of refrigerated stuff we kept in it.
I seem to remember hearing Dawkins answer that question with something like, "Give science enough time and we'll why there's anything." But science assumes that there's something. If you argue scientifically for something science presupposes, your argument will be circular. It'll treat its conclusion as a premise. The conclusion becomes, you might say, evidence for itself.
@@CaptainFantastic222 I should have said "presupposes" instead of "assumes." For scientists to do natural science, the natural world must already exist. So if I assume that the natural world's only cause is natural, too, that doesn't explain what made that world's existence possible. If the universe began to exist, its merely possible existence existed without it. Material objects have possible, non-actual properties. But no possibility is a material object. Some atheists may tell you that the universe's existence is a brute fact. But there's a major problem with that belief. A brute fact is something that can't get explained, even in principle. So there's no way to know that. something is a brute fact. After all, the ability to identify one presupposes that the brute fact has an explanation, the thing that by definition, it can't have.
@@CaptainFantastic222 You're welcome. Thanks for not mentioning my stupid typo. I should dictate my comments to my computer before posting them. As you can see, my tongue flaps more accurately than I type. Be glad we're in different places because you'd hate the resulting hot air. :O. Notice the mouth gaping widely enough to swallow my left fist. :)
I think one could plausibly argue that "nothing" is a product of human imagination. It derives from the distinction between everything (beings as a whole) and what is in no way anything (nothing whatsoever). Now the irony is that the latter, as deriving from a _negation,_ is capable of many determinations. One could say it is Nothing, but one could also say it is Being, since Being (esse, to-be) is also not any thing. Metaphysicians have played on this paradox to produce many profound communications, and Alain Badiou, drawing from set-theory, has transported it into a theory on the immanence of eternal truths. Fundamentally though, it seems to me one is speaking about immanence and (vs.) transcendence. Transcendence is what is fundamentally different from whatever-is, the temporal, the everything. Depending on the philosopher/theologian/mystic, Transcendence can take on the flavor of Being, Nothing, Ab-solute, and so on. And that is going to depend on how they draw these distinctions; and no one can say which way of drawing these distinctions is "exactly" right. The point here is that our imaginations of "nothing" (and its avatars) are derived through a distinction we ourselves are drawing (and cannot help but draw) between everything that is and its negation or negative side. But in the end, we _cannot observe_ anything that isn't "something." We can think about it through contradistinctions, certainly we can write down words like "nothing" and "nonbeing." But to observe these in an absolute form is an absurdity, since they would imply the annihilation of being and of its observer, hence of the very possibility of observing the distinction being vs. nothing. Martin Heidegger of course explored the Being/Nothing homophony in all of his works, and by dint of that set off a veritable revolution in metaphysics that was best traced through Derrida and Jean-Luc Nancy. On that note there is an excellent essay in _Cult and Culture_ by Jacob Taubes on Heidegger's "substantivization" of the adverbial nothing, defending him from Carnap's attack. Graham Priest has some books on this topic, though his flavoring is more of a Zen style mixed with analytical philosophy; I haven't read him though did take a course with him once. I have mentioned Alain Badiou, whose theory of being, void, event, worlds, truths, is certainly one of the most immense ever produced, and deserves the attention of theologians (he has a book _Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism_ which is a good introduction to how the theory works). But the book I would recommend to everyone here above all is Niklas Luhmann's _A Systems Theory of Religion;_ very challenging but it is his work that has inspired me, after a life of studying theology, to think about all this in a more radical and, I think, enlightening way. Returning to my initial statement, doesn't one have to admit that "nothing" is totally beyond the reach of any operation we could make? All of our operations are with "something." Even if they be ideas or fictions, these aren't nothing. I think those of us who are familiar with theology and terms like "nonbeing", we take for granted that there is some _signified_ corresponding to this signifier. And this _seems_ easy because we have experiences of things not being there all the time. "The house was full, now it's empty and there's nothing in it." We derive our intuition of "absolutely nothing" from such experiences of the transience of things. Then we project a total nothingness somewhere-- but where? Usually into a temporal "before" of Everything. But obviously, we have no proof of this outside of imagination (including our imaginative interpretation of the ancient cosmologies in Genesis, which we now also admit are not literal/physicalist but allegories). We have to default on the extension of a metaphor. We seem to make some sort of mental image of the negation of all "stuff" and all the "laws"--but really, what sort of mental image is this? One would have to admit, it is quite limited and (what irritates the scientists) seemingly unfalsifiable. I think if we ask ourselves seriously, we do not really know anything about nothing, except by a hypothesis that says: "nothing" is outside the boundaries of what we can observe, e.g. being. We can then take it for its source or its negation, its animating umphf or its inglorious dissipation. Or again as the evil that attends to being by some flaw. Or again as the reality of our very existence insofar as we observe that existence from the standpoint of God (via the analogy of being, cf. Pryzwara). But as for nothing's "existence", well, it depends upon what we observe it "existing" over and against. And on top of that, obviously, _the existence of nothing is a paradox,_ including when it is hypothesized as "pre-not-existing" existence itself. When we look at paradoxes we have to look at the unity of the difference, here, the unity of everything and nothing, and interdependence of the distinguished sides. It is the distinction we make between them that makes the difference, quite apart from the 'ontological status' of 'everything' and 'nothing', which can be arranged in countless different "framings." None of the framings can claim ultimacy, while at the same time they all converge (unity of mystical thinking) because they all come back to the same code of immanence/transcendence and the endless variety of interpretations we can put on that distinction. The difference-making is operative. Because really, if one asks oneself seriously, what evidence do we have of "nothing," outside of speculation/imagination, that is, outside the _observation_ of the difference (the difference Heidegger called ontological and Maxence Caron calls "fundamental")? It being remembered that _to observe a distinction is always to (re)make one..._
>Now the irony is that the latter, as deriving from a negation, is capable of many determinations No, a negation is an unambigous logical operation you can apply to any statement. "X exists, it is something" -> apply negation -> "X doesn't exist, it is not something". "Not something" is also called "nothing".
You know when you see at title like "Atheists Can't Answer This Question" it is going to be either not a coherent question or a question that is actually very easy to answer and has been countless times.
@@JosephHeschmeyerIt’s the latter. The claim that “nothingness” is even a possible state of affairs seems to be completely without evidentiary support. Big bang cosmology, for example, shows us that all of the mass and energy in the universe already existed at the Planck epoch, which is the earliest measurable point in the universe’s history, so there quite literally has never been a point in time in which “something” didn’t already exist. Philosophically speaking, even a vast expanse of empty space could still rightly be called “something”, so nothingness wouldn’t even be that, and we have literally zero evidence that such an absence of any and all things is even possible.
@@TestMeatDollSteak So instead of answering the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" you're simply arguing that there's always been something. Leaving aside the possible problems with this view (infinite past duration of time), it doesn't remotely answer the question, does it?
@@shamelesspopery So, instead of justifying the assumption that is built into your question (that “nothingness” is possible), you’re apparently just sticking to your script. An infinite regression of time isn’t a problem with my view at all. The Big Bang appears to have occurred ~14 billion years ago, so the universe is past-finite; or, as some cosmologists explain, there was an earliest moment of time. How do you get from there to the idea that nothingness is possible? If you’re simply trying to ask me to explain the universe’s origins, then I’ll quite happily admit that I can’t answer that question. So far as I’ve ever heard, no one else can explain the universe’s origins, either. I don’t know, you don’t know, scientists don’t know, religious apologists don’t know, philosophers don’t know, nobody knows.
@@TestMeatDollSteakwhy is nothing impossible? To go a step further, do you realize that the only possible answers to that questions are: 1-it's not 2-there is at least a necessary being, one that can't fail to exist. This question is wholly unrelated to time, it's about the fact natural things are not necessary, because they come into and out of existance at certain times.
You are absolutely right. This IS a religious/philosophical/metaphysical question, NOT a material one. Krauss is full of BS. Nothing means a State of Non-being, where not even the concept of Nothing exists. It is, for the human mind, totally incomprehensible. And this is where the mind of the scientist cannot go. Leibnitz is correct, for God alone meets the criteria of sufficient reason to explain the existence of anything, even if that anything began as an abstract concept.
Okay but First cause, Moral Law, fine tuning, intelligent design, etc only get you as far as Deism. How do we know the Judeo Christian God specifically did all these things?
@@ST-ov8cm the question does not refer to the material universe, it refers to being. There is no reason the immaterial could always exist but the material could not also always exist.
@@Essex626 Of course it refers to the material. A thing is a thing. As to your second point; that is the question philosophy is trying to discuss. If you have some special insight, perhaps you can contribute to the conversation. Perhaps you can explain the unmoved mover or how we can actually have infinite time or an infinite number of a thing.
@@Essex626 It is alwys interesting to watch the discussion about material vs immaterial and being vs non-being. Especially when those concept are tossed around with such confidence. I don't understand that confidence.
Why is there a God and not nothing? Question answered by another unanswerable question. Also, does there being something mean the Christian God is the only answer? So answer this question: since there is something, who created it? And prove without falling back on the Bible says so.
You didn't answer the question, you literally are just restating the question. You simply put "a God" in the place of "something." Fundamentally, your "answer" misunderstands the issue. Atheism postulates that immaterial beings cannot exist. But, if you postulate that, you have to explain how we have anything. There is no framework within materialism that allows nothing to produce something.
>Why is there a God and not nothing? Because we observe that we do not exist in a state of nothing. Perhaps a better question would be "why is God necessary for "something" to exist?", which I'd reply that God is conceptually necessary to avoid a causal infinite regress and the logical contradictions that would entail (see: Hilbert's Hotel). >Does there being something mean the Christian God is the only answer? Not from that data point alone. Existence precedes essence (you can't know what something is unless you acknowledge that it exists), so first you must acknowledge the existence of God as a source of "something", then you can employ reason to inform the essence of God. If the divine origin of creation is accepted, then the Christian God is the most reasonable (rationally parsimonious) explanation. "Since there is something, who created it?" A non-contingent (necessary), immaterial and supernaturally powerful entity. This we call God.
Philosophically you need something which is self-existent in order to avoid the problem of an infinite regress of causes (which actually is begging the question). We see the principle of cause and effect operating everywhere, so we infer that prior to the present causes there were previous causes which caused them, backward in time. This is a very real and solid observation of reality. This is how you reason to a first cause, an un-caused cause. I don't think you're taking all of this into consideration when you say, "Why is there a God and not nothing"? Nothing cannot produce something, so nothing is out of the picture. It is not an answer. There must be a self-existent un-caused cause. That's how we arrive at either God, a personal being and the source of all being, the Creator, or matter/energy which is dumb, mindless, will-less, etc., and can't do anything at all unless it bumps into other material randomly. These are your two choices. Now how do these causes hold up under scrutiny?
God can't possibly fail to exist, because His essence (what it is), is identical with His existance (that it is). A more modern phrasing of this concept is "He is existance itself". If existance fails to exist, then redness fails to be red? No, that's incoherent.
Can the "nothing" that you describe ever exist? No? Then why did you spend so much time talking about something that, by definition, cannot exist. Krauss and co. know that your "nothing" is meaningless, so they talk about other things which could be real--and that point sailed directly over your head.
This isn’t remotely difficult for atheists to answer. You first have to justify the idea that “nothingness” is even a possibility, to begin with. Literally every human experience throughout history has entailed “something” - everywhere around us, there is “something”. Even a vast expanse of empty space is still _something,_ for example, so what gives you the impression that there even has been, or ever could be, a total absence of all things? Even modern cosmology shows us that, at the very earliest moments of the Big Bang, all of the mass and energy in the universe already existed, so there quite literally has never been a point in time in the entire history of the universe that there hasn’t already been “something”.
Where did that "something" come from? To claim the existence of "something" as a brute fact merely ignores the question, either by a lack of intellectual curiosity or a hubris to believe it is a question unworthy of consideration
@@TheMadman911xx Asking where the entirety of space and time came from is an incoherent question, because it begs the question of a location that isn’t in space (locations are necessarily spatiotemporal). It’s like asking what’s north of the North Pole.
@@TestMeatDollSteak The question of origins is not "incoherent" because it's a question about ultimate causation, and we have abundant proof that cause-and-effect is how things work. And you can't just assume materialism. You would have to establish it first.
@@TestMeatDollSteak It's not an incoherent question, it's a metaphysical question. That such a question cannot be answered through natural explanations does not invalidate it, but rather requires a different sort of analysis (e.g., philosophical inquiry) to address. Though I do agree that the causal agent for the origin of space and time must be, by necessity, outside of space and time and thus cannot be located in the same way we locate the North Pole
@@MillionthUsername I never said that the question of the universe’s origin is incoherent. I specifically explained that asking _where_ the universe came from is incoherent, because it begs the question of a location that isn’t in space or time. That’s a nonsensical idea. You might be able to ask _how_ or _why_ the universe came to exist - those seem to be at least coherent questions - but it doesn’t make sense to ask _where_ it came from. And, I have absolutely no idea how the universe came to exist, or why the universe expanded, and so far as I can tell no one else can explain the universe’s origins, either.
Science can only answer the questions "how" and "what". What happened? How did it happen? What caused it? What if?; these questions are the purview of science. Science cannot answer the question "Why". Now someone might reply: "But asking, 'why does energy flow from higher states to lower states?' is a why question". But this question asked in this way implies a cause that possesses will and purpose. Energy does not make a reasoning decision to move from higher states to lower states, it simply follows the laws of physics. The scientific answer to the question is a "how" and "what" answer, not a "why" answer, so the proper scientific way to ask about the flow of energy would be: "What causes energy to flow from a higher state to a lower state?" or "how does energy flow from higher to lower states?" If one askes "why" the answer become theological/philosophical.
I think that the whole misunderstanding with the definitions of nothing from Krauss and Hawking comes from a completely different mindset between philosophers and scientists. Where the philosophers are asking "Why?", the scientists only hear "how?". The philosophers who ask "why?" seem to be seeking a Teleological explanation. Science has largely rejected Teleology for the past few hundred years - which might explain the whole scientific misunderstanding. While "How does space exist" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense (kind of like "How does God exist?"), "Why does space exist" will actually be a question that makes sense to those who accept Teleology, as most religious-types seem to. But if you don't accept that Teleology is veridical, then the question probably needs to be reinterpreted (misinterpreted?) in order to make the question answerable beyond just "Its a brute fact" - which is an intensely unsatisfying answer! Anyway, just my thoughts here, and I am just some kid haha! Edit: Posted too soon! at around 38 minutes, you call the "How question" "remarkably incurious". I am not sure I'd call it that way, I'd just say that that question underpins an understanding of the way the universe works that scientists simply don't share.
Right. The presumption of the scientist is generally that of physicalism or materialism. The “why” and the “how” are conflated, since for them there is no “why” beyond physical and material interactions.
@@tafazzi-on-discord I'm actually not saying "Theology", but rather, "Teleology", which is a branch of metaphysics about "ends" or "purposes". Teloi, the plural of Telos, were the 4th Cause in Aristotlean physics.
Yes, Krauss is actually pretty explicit that even though he's asking "Why," he actually only intends to answer "How" (which he doesn't actually answer, but that's beside the point). In his words, "in science we have to be particularly cautious about 'why" questions. When we ask, 'Why?' we usually mean 'How?' If we can answer the latter, that generally suffices for our purposes. For example, we might ask: 'Why is the Earth 93 million miles from the Sun?' but what we really probably mean is, 'How is the Earth 93 million miles from the Sun?' That is, we are interested in what physical processes led to the Earth ending up in its present position. 'Why' implicitly suggests purpose, and when we try to understand the solar system in scientific terms, we do not generally ascribe purpose to it. So I am going to assume what this question really means to ask is, 'How is there something rather than nothing?' 'How' questions are really the only ones we can provide definitive answers to by studying nature, but because this sentence sounds much stranger to the ear, I hope you will forgive me if I sometimes fall into the trap of appearing to discuss the more standard formulation when I am really trying to respond to the more specific 'how' question." So he hears the philosophical problem "why is there something rather than nothing?," realizes that the natural sciences can't answer "why" questions like this, and so he claims to answer it by redefining "why" to mean "how," and "nothing" to mean "something."
Listen, we clearly can't ask that much from modern scientists when it comes to philosophy. These are the people that gave the name "atom" to particles that can be divided into further. Poor guys are just not cut up to properly thinking about these issues.
The philosophical battle between the opposing ideas for the existence of an "atomos" was, on the other hand, somehow something to be admired. Is that a somewhat correct description of your position? Despite the fact that they had basically nothing but "trust me bruh" to support either view. Sell an idea with a fancy worded presentation which "sounds good" to a sufficiently large group and you had a "philosophical truth". The scientific method came along and gave plenty of old philosophical ideas some nasty wedgies.
I was an atheist for about 5 years and got really into many of the atheist thinkers you listed. I happen to have read Krauss' book you're referring to. I have to admit, I'm a bit critical still of various arguments for God's existence even as a believer. My criticism of your basic argument is that it establishes that the non-existence of things would be a result of the non-existence of God (some potential problems with that idea, but I'll leave them for now). But it doesn't establish that God's existence is the only possible precondition for the existence of things. You're saying if A then B. Then you say B, therefore A. It doesn't necessarily follow. More accurately, you're saying this. If not A therefore not B. B, therefore A. Premise one may be true. But it doesn't follow that A is therefore the only precondition for B. If we established B exists if and only if A, then given B exists we would necessarily have to conclude that A exists. You're argument doesn't make it quite that far. But what I do find interesting is that how Krauss and others answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing" is, at its core, the same answer Aquinas gives for the existence of God. Krauss' presupposition is the same as Aquinas' conclusion, that there must be some bruit fact, some non-contingent reality in a category all it's own from which all else derives it's being. What I am skeptical of is the very idea or nothing as such. An atheist can validly say that the very idea of nothing in absolute terms is meaningless. It's self negating. It's a contradiction to refer to the "being of nothing," which is what the question you're asking does. "Why is there something rather than nothing" pits the "is" of something against the "is" of nothing. An atheist can validly say this is a completely meaningless question because the very idea of the "is" of nothing is a contradiction in terms and therefore negates itself, and thus has no meaning. Since the second part of the question negates itself, the question reduces to a mere observation that things exist. It's sort of like asking what blue smells like. Grammatically it qualifies as a question we can ask. But it confuses categories in a way that renders the question meaningless, and thus no question at all. I agree that the existence of things leaves us demanding an explanation. But I don't think this question is the best way to get at an answer. I think Aquinas gets at it better with the argument from contingency. It doesn't prove God per se. But it's a solid first step because it shows there must be something categorically other and non-contingent upon which all else depends. So, in a round about and back door sort of way, I'm arriving at the same point you are.
This is why the scientific "proofs" for God really shouldn't be treated as proofs. Your position is understandable given our culture, but it's a bit of a misrepresentation of the religious perspective Yes, there are any number of non-God causes of the universe that we could conceive of. We could be in a simulation in a world with a whole different set of laws of logic. We could be created by a deceitful god. We could have an amoral creator outside of time. This doesn't prove that God exists. It demonstrates that the best explanation for existence is an eternal being outside space and time. And from there, we make leaps of faith. As a matter of faith, most humans believe in morality and truth. For those things to meaningfully exist (opposed to being conventions of evolution), there must be an eternal standard of morality and truth. So we ascribe that to God. If the discovery of truth is good (as we assume by faith), then we can reason that God would want us to discover his nature which gives us reason to expect revelation. Then we look to history and we see the universality of religiosity in man and we conclude that we're predisposed towards divine worship, not belief naturalism. And we see that some people like Jesus managed to miraculously convince millions of people that he raised from the dead with such certainty that they would die for the faith. And we see that he left behind a church with scripture that is remarkably coherent and timeless. The point being, the contingency arguments are only a part of the bigger picture. Religion is ultimately based in faith and that's not a bad thing. My faith in religion is no more of a belief than my faith that gravity will still work when I walk outside
@@sivad1025 I 100% agree with everything you just said. I stuck to a first cause argument above so as not to write a novel in one comment. But everything you said represents precisely the next steps I would take to explain why I believe in God, and specifically Christ. Faith is the final key ingredient to positive belief in anything, I would argue. All the logical arguments can point you in the right direction, but faith is finally what moves you through the door. Just reiterating your point. I'm not sure I could put in any better. Completely agree! I criticised Joe's particular argument and referenced Aquinas not to suggest a logical proof for God. But to say that if we're going to use logical argumentation to argue for our belief in God, which I think we should, I find the argument Joe laid out to have fatal flaws when leveled at atheists. I think there are better arguments. In addition, the precise points you make take the next steps toward supporting belief in God.
@@timrichardson4018 Got it, I thought you were suggesting that the argument altogether fails because it doesn't get you to God definitively even though it's useful as one part of a broader argument. But I completely agree with your reply. Christianity has done a weird thing in the last couple centuries. We used to be the leaders of scientific discovery because we understood it in the context of faith. But then the critics latched on to the scientific process, threw out the faith part and suddenly Christians have decided to play ball in their court and make proofs without faith. It's all a futile exercise. Sure, it's theoretically possible that 2+2=5 and humans have evolved to have faulty logic that misperceives 2+2 as 4. But at a certain point, extreme agnosticism stands in the way of discovery. There's no shame in biting the bullet of faith
Just to point out one thing, when you talk about Krauss and his "something from nothing", his "nothing" is actually really "something" (I think it was just marketing to give it that title). BUT, ultimately we still don't know why his "nothing" exists. Bottom line, we really can't answer the question "why does anything exist?". Another way to put it given that we know our universe had a beginning, is that yes, there is a creator (C), but the only attribute we can ascribe C is that "it created at least one universe". Eg, C could be a 15 yr old hacker in an encapsulating universe that wrote some code....and here we are. Or the god of the bible. Or the Kraussian "nothing". But no matter what, we're still left with the question "why does anything exist?". And I don't think we'll ever figure that out.
Tim, Thanks for your comment! The argument I’m using is a modus tollens, which is a standard form of (logically-valid) syllogism. The form goes: P1. If A is true, B is true. P2. B is not true. C. Therefore, A is not true. So for instance, make A “it is raining” and B “the ground is wet.” If it is raining, the ground is wet. The ground isn’t wet. Therefore, it isn’t raining. As long as your two premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. In the argument I used in this episode, A is “God does not exist” and B is “nothing exists.” If A is true, B is true: If God does not exist, nothing exists. But B is not true: it’s not true that “nothing exists.” Therefore, A (the non-existence of God) is false. Admittedly, this is more confusing because there are more negatives -- it's an argument negating God's non-existence -- just as it would be harder to follow the argument if I said, “if it is raining, the ground is not dry.” But logically, it’s just as sound as any other modus tollens.
Understanding of a topic gives you answer to why questions. Why do we have two eyes? We didn't know the answer until the theory of evolution gave us a worldview able to answer it: because bilateral symmetry is the body plan with the best fitness for mobile animals, and there is little evolutionary incentive in losing both eyes, or gaining new pairs. You can prove both of those statements. That gives you an answer to the why. That means evolution is a richer understanding of the world than other ideas. Similarily, atheism can't answer that question, but theism can. That makes theism a richer understanding of the world.
Hawking Our universe exists because there are other universes that made it so …. Hahahaha how he made the simple question of how one universe came to be from nothing … to infinitely more complex issue on how multiple universes came to exist from nothing and how they are able to interact with one another to both create and destroy other universes
People come up with convoluted, intellectually empty anti-religion arguments like this so they don't have to do penance for their sins. If God is real, they have to repent and ask Him for mercy, just like the rest of us sinners. If God being real didn't effect their lives like that, they would never write such wastes of paper and ink as these books. They would simply stand aside, not believe, and move on with their lives. But because God offers mercy and love, they want to shirk their responsibilities so that they can't enter into that. It's so gross.
Any theist out there who whole heartedly rejects the idea that something can come from nothing should just as enthusiastically reject the idea that god created the universe and everything in it from total nothingness (creatio ex-nihilo). If, on the other hand, you DO want to argue that god created the entirety of physical reality (time, space, energy, mass, matter, etc) from complete nothingness, then just admit that you’re perfectly fine and dandy with the idea that something can come from nothing. You would just then have to think that plugging a deity into the equation there somehow makes a nonsensical idea make sense, which I don’t agree with.
You have a misunderstanding that is simple to solve. Creation ex nihilo means that God did not organize preexisting "stuff" to make the word, He produced, He caused to be into existance in all senses of the word "caused", the substance (or "stuff") that makes up the physical world, including space and time. There cannot ever be a sinlge moment of nothingness, because God exists necessarily always. That's the point of the argument. You're wrong, I know this is not enough to convince you that you are, but once I do do you promise to become a theist?
@@tafazzi-on-discord TH-cam keeps deleting my replies to you in this thread. I didn’t use any profanity or insulting language, didn’t post any links, didn’t copy/paste anything, but it keeps disappearing my replies in this thread.
@@tafazzi-on-discord So, this is now my fourth attempt to reply to your comment; TH-cam has removed all of my previous attempts for no obvious reason. Creatio ex nihilo does not makes sense because neither existence itself, nor acts of creation, nor acts of causation make any sense whatsoever without a time or a place for them to occur. If God isn’t in time or space, then you can equally say that he isn’t anywhere (in no location or no point in space) for any amount of time (at no point in time). Things that don’t exist can also rightly be said to not be in any point in space for any amount of time. All acts of creation, whether done by an intelligent being such as a human or done by the unguided laws of physics, that we ever see or experience are _ex materia;_ they’re essentially rearrangements of pre-existing “stuff” forming new/novel “stuff”. Causation and creation are events that happen in time and space - “stuff” interacts with some other pre-existing “stuff” and makes “new stuff”. The idea of creatio ex nihilo robs acts of creation or causation of all their meaning by robbing them not only of a time or a place for them to occur, but also by not having any THINGS to have acted upon! It does not make one single solitary iota of sense. You are, whether you want to own it or not, essentially just saying that all of time, space, and physical reality just instantly popped into existence, and that god “did it” in some way that you can’t even endeavor to clarify or explain. That’s basically just like saying “It was magic!” performed by a magician who isn’t anywhere for any amount of time. If there is an all powerful, all knowing god who actually WANTS me to know that he exists, then it would take more than me simply getting philosophically on board with the idea of a timeless, spaceless, changeless mind who pops everything into existence from a total absence of all things, to convince me he exists. There’s still the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of evil, and numerous historical and scientific problems with Christianity and all other religions, in general. I’d have to meet him and directly interact with him, and have him explain everything to me in a way that actually makes sense.
@@TestMeatDollSteak All acts of creation either imply rearrangement of stuff on the same level of existance, or *producion* on a lower level of existance. We can produce ideas, arguments, poetry, fictional character. These exist, they are objects of our speech, but they are on a lower level of existance than, say, the physical. For God it's the same. He isn't producing another God, another thing with the same substance He is made of, He is creating ex nihilo something on a lower level of existance, which are created substances. I can explain how God did it only by analogy, because it's obviously not a repeatable event, but let's talk about the creation of Middle Earth: Tolkien was the author at level of existance A, and he produced something on level of existance A-1, which specifically is "fiction". This existance is only sustained if something in level of existance A supports it, now Tolkien is dead but Middle Earth is still an object of our discourse, because there are people like me and maybe you on level of existance A that sustain it as a concept, through our minds and speech. God alone is at level of existance 0, above which there is no other because by definition God is existance itself. You can see creation ex nihilo in an analogous way to Tolkien making Middle Earth. >There’s still the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of evil Those just deny that God is the foundation of morality. Some deists take that position.
All acts of creation either imply rearrangement of stuff on the same level of existance, or producion on a lower level of existance. We can produce ideas, arguments, poetry, fictional character. These exist, they are objects of our speech, but they are on a lower level of existance than, say, the physical. For God it's the same. He isn't producing another God, another thing with the same substance He is made of, He is creating ex nihilo something on a lower level of existance, which are created substances. I can explain how God did it only by analogy, because it's obviously not a repeatable event, but let's talk about the creation of Middle Earth: Tolkien was the author at level of existance A, and he produced something on level of existance A-1, which specifically is "fiction". This existance is only sustained if something in level of existance A supports it, now Tolkien is dead but Middle Earth is still an object of our discourse, because there are people like me and maybe you on level of existance A that sustain it as a concept, through our minds and speech. God alone is at level of existance 0, above which there is no other because by definition God is existance itself. You can see creation ex nihilo in an analogous way to Tolkien making Middle Earth. >There’s still the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of evil Those just deny that God is the foundation of morality. Some deists take that position.
The term or concept of nothing is a non sequitur, surely. It's an incomprehensible nonsense. All that can be is being, or something. Nothing can't be, because if it was (which again is a nonsense) then something couldn't be. In the absence of matter and energy, the only thing that can exist is being or mind. So what we mistakenly think of as nothing, due to the absence of matter, is actually not nothing but being. Something always has to be for anything to exist at all, because there's no such thing as nothing, and since matter and energy has not existed eternally, then something has to exist eternally to bring it into existence, and the only thing that can exist is being, or mind. It's remarkable that a man will say "my brain" or "my body," as if he has a brain and has a body that he uses and lives in, yet is somehow ontologically separate and distinct from it. We just are, just as God just is, and we derive our being from his being whilst being separate from his being. And so, the question of why there is something rather than nothing is also a non sequitur, because nothing can't be, only being can be.
>So what we mistakenly think of as nothing, due to the absence of matter We call that "void". Using precise language helps understanding. The concept of nothing is logically sound, it doesn't entail a contradiction (unlike say "four sided triangle"), it's not a logical impossibility but it's a metaphysical impossibility because God is a necessary being in all possible worlds.
@tafazzi-on-discord I guess it's a semantic issue. Nothing and void are conceptually the same thing. The bible says the earth was a formless void. How can something be nothing? What the bible means to say is that it was unformed. The mistake is to think that a void is something when it's not. That's the mistake Krauss makes. Absolute nothing is an impossibility. Infinite space is absolute nothing.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 no, in philosophy they've been distinct ever since Aristotle. Nothing is the abscence of being, void is that which has the potential to house a substance, they're different. The (world) was void, Genesis 1 picks up after the Universe was already created. Absolute nothing is an impossibility, I agree, and it is an impossibility because there is a being that cannot possibly fail to exist: God
@@myrddingwynedd2751 I don't think so, God is being itself. You can obtain a void by removing all matter in a certain area of space, void is a created thing because space is created. God is not created.
Fine Tuning: The universe’s physical constants are fine tuned for life and extremely improbable. Not just carbon life but any life, because if it were a little bit different, then it would be something like completely crushed or so on. The physical constants being necessary wouldn’t make much sense. There’s nothing saying they are necessary. Furthermore, Why then would we have a set of necessary constants that happen to be fine tuned? Some will use the multiverse as an objection. First of all, the multiverse is a theory with no evidence whatsoever. Theories like the black hole theory have been debunked. There are also scientific reasons to believe there is not a multiverse. Beyond this, there’s many problems and contradictions with actual infinites, meaning their probably not possible. Beyond even this, even if there were life in a universe, it would probably be a bunsen brain, or a single observer popping in and out of existence, with false memories, and a simple universe. You know you are not a bunsen brain because your still here aren’t you? There is still technically a possibility we get us right? Well, imagine if you had a poker game. And someone got 5 royal flushes in a row. It would be more probable that you are in a universe where someone cheated than probability allowed it. You would have to get rid of all probability if you were to say that, and not be surprised by anything anymore. Furthermore, a multiverse would also have to be fine tuned to create other universes. And the “Meta Laws” Atheists talk about are things eerily similar to gods.
Necessity: Is the universe just unexplainable? Well, there’s nothing showing it is. Imagine seeing a ball and asking, “why is it here”, and someone said “it was just always here.” It wouldn’t make much sense. Some ask if the Universe is Necessary but we have the same problem. Furthermore, I can at least imagine the universe not existing. Sure, I can imagine God not existing, but not everything I can imagine is possible. I can imagine unproven math equations are either true or false, but it’s necessarily going to be either one or the other. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that doesn’t make them necessary. It doesn’t mean they have to exist, merely it’s a physical law of the universe, but it doesn’t say anything about how it all started, for example. And could you, for example, imagine the universe being made of a different fundamental matter? I could. But with God, we have definitions like, “The greatest thing conceived”. Since God is the “greatest” thing, God cannot be something different, even if people have different opinions on God, God is either one or the other. God cannot not exist, because God is greatest, meaning He has Perfect Power, OmniPotent, He is Perfectly Knowing (Omniscient), He also has Perfect Existence, or is Necessary by His own definition. It’s like with fire, fire must be hot, that is part of its own definition. But a house on the other hand could or could not be brown, or could and could not be necessary. Whereas, God by definition, is Necessary, and is the only thing we have like that. You could say you don’t believe in things such as “good” or “greater”, which has its own philosophical problems. But nevertheless, that doesn’t change anything, because then it’s leaves you without explanation. Whereas if God’s Definition is true, then that simply means that this Argument is Valid. And God is really the only thing that fits as we have seen. You could say there isn’t a such thing as things not existing, or coming into existence. Just preexisting things changing. And that there never is a time where things leave existence. However, this would again, just be like saying that everything’s just here, and there’s no reason for it. The ball analogy. So, it isn’t very good. We do know things like unicorns don’t exist, so what’s to say why the universe exists in the first place? And that is the point of this argument.
Intelligibility of the Universe: Joe Heshmyer actually did a great video on it. Think about this, why can math make any type of science intelligible? Is God a mathematician? Why is the universe so intelligible? This shows a type of order that shouldn’t be there in chaos, or when things are caused by random chance.
Kalam Argument: 1. Everything has a cause to its existence 2. This cannot my go into infinite regression 3. Something cannot cause itself into existence 4. Therefore, there is a first cause (God) Premise 2 is what most people have a problem with. This is the Kalam Argument. You can reword it to the regular Cosmological Argument to show that even if there was a train without infinite boxcars, that wouldn’t explain why the train is moving. Similarity, an infinite number of contingent things cannot account for the existence of one contingent thing. That again gets into Necessity and contingency. Besides that, there are contradictions that come up with an infinite past. An infinite future is possible due to it not being an actual infinite. Doing math with infinites is possible due to them not being actual infinites. Think about like with time travel. If you kill yourself in the past, it creates a contradiction. Therefore, some people actually see the timeline just simply intervening and not allowing this to happen, which shows some kind of God-like intervention. There’s the infinite civilization problem with an infinite past, as well as the problem of never reaching the present. There are other objections I’m not gonna get to, but the problem is, that actual infinites have contradictions that seemingly make them impossible. And therefore, an infinite past cannot be possible. Plus, for atheism to work you’d now have to both assume there’s an infinite past and a multiverse!
We can know things about God, like that there is a God through referencing the universe and logic. However, we cannot know everything about God through logic. That leads us to divine revelation. One way to tell what is true is through miracles. I encourage people to look at Fatima, or the Resurrection, or Zeitoun, or Guadalupe, or Lourdes, etc.
Is there a sufficient reason, besides God, to answer why there's something rather than nothing? It seems like answering this question will definitely direct one's life to "somewhere"....
In my understanding, not quietly. I think it all goes back to the first podcast of this series: it requires a motor which moves without being moved, which is set apart from creation. And that is God, maybe not the christian God (that would require some more development of this idea), but certainly some sort of deity.
@@thormallet I see. I'm looking forward to seeing someone makes an argument that supports the idea of a deity who doesn't sound like the God of the Bible or any kind of god. Thanks for the comment, by the way. Have a blessed day!
The answer of God however, is just repeating the problem. If God exists, then there is something. Even if someone wants to argue about material or immaterial or outside space and time, it doesn't matter. If God exists, they exist in the cosmos at large, but then we are left with the same question. Why is there something rather than nothing? We have to accept a brute fact, and the problem for the theist is justifying why a god of any kind would be more likely to exist _on top of_ the cosmos existing, and why the cosmos could not exist without any such being. People tend to then argue from first cause, but this assumes a first cause and that infinite regress is impossible, rather than merely uncomfortable.
@@Rogstin That's not just uncomfortable, it's necessary logically. And that is the very reason why God does exist and cannot not exist, because He's beingness in itself and existence is meraly in dependency of Him. The question simply doesn't apply for this matter, because it's of a different nature than what we were talking about. Maybe I could be a little bit more clear, but I hope you get my general point. Have a good one!
@@thormallet _And that is the very reason why God does exist and cannot not exist, because He's beingness in itself and existence is meraly in dependency of Him._ That just doesn't follow, and is a contradiction of an infinite regress if *it* starts with God. There is nothing about reality that requires a being like God, and to suppose it does only begs the question of why a god, and not a god for god? You can try to claim it's a different class, but it really isn't, or at least, no one has demonstrated how it is. Of course, any god granted by a first cause argument is a long way from anyone's personal god. However, such a god isn't justified by such cosmological arguments regardless.
Everything begins from nothing, all physical matters and spiritual begun from Zero level, meaning nothing. By nothing does not mean emptiness. God is the cause of everything that exists
"Is" and "nothing" cannot be used at the same time, because "is" describes some state of existence, which "nothing" should not have. Statement P1 of the existence argument does not make sense. "If god did not exist, no things would exists". But god exists, so at least one thing exists. P1 is therefore wrong and cannot be used as the base of a conclusion. If the premise is wrong, you cannot conclude anything from that. In fact you complain about the re-definition of nothing, but accept the existence of a god as not violating the"nothing". If "nothing" would be as you intend it should be seen, you would also exclude a god from that nothingness. But there are other reasons why that entire reasoning is useless. You could replace "God" with anything, and the logic would be the same, e.g. replace "God" with "Hyperdimensional Spacemonster". Do you think the Hyperdimensional Spacemonster exisits? Linkely not.
Statement P1 is that if God does NOT exist, then nothing would exist. It is not postulating a situation where there is nothing and God exists. You are quite confused.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw I only point out that you cannot say something like "nothing would exist" because it is contradicting. "Existence" describes a state of something in relation to time. And your "nothing" does not have time. Is there any proof that "If god did not exist, no things would exists" is a true statement? What about the statement "If the Hyperdimensional Spacemonster did not exist, no thing would exist". How can you argue that the one true and the other one not?
Unfortunately, scientists are not the only people who struggle with conversations contrary to their beliefs. The reason for the conversation is that he needs others to believe what he believes. That's not because he genuinely wants others to see the truth. He needs others to agree with his version of truth, because if enough people can agree with him his truth can actually be true. The real issue is that he cannot defend his view. So he attempts to redefine the parameters so he can defend his "truth".
God is byhond being able to be defined. Why can't we say the same for existence itself. Backing up on the why's of what we are meets up with mystery. Mystery which is by definition nothing we know. That's not "nothing". That's nothing we know to define, or able to know. Just like what God is. The God of the Bible wants us to believe. But science will never be the final answer (proof) to belief. But what we are looks for God. The question is what makes us find Him. A science of God!? Funny how evil proves God more than good does. We need an explanation before our battered dignity. Only a transcendent something before nothing can fill that space. Only a God suffering the same as us could explain the deep nothingness of evil in our lives. Only love has the definition of giving itself away, when nothing is forcing it to do so.
AMAZING CONTENT but presentation is too 'square.' Not to say be all hipster but small things. Like the into sounds like im watching a cheese old grandma tea time show.
So your comment about "how" instead of "why" being an incurious position misses the point. From a materialist perspective, asking "why" for something that is non-human is nonsensical. "Why" is a question which implies reason and purpose, and to a materialist those are not things which exist except as assigned by humans. So a universe can't have a why. Note here, I'm not a materialist or an atheist, at least not at this point.
Not really. In the sense you propose how and why can mean the same thing. Why is there something can be explained by how it got here. But, it cannot be explained as having come from nothing.
@@ST-ov8cm You're incorrect in your assessment, as I understand materialism (I'm not a materialist currently). First of all, you're assuming there ever was a "nothing." Except you don't believe there ever was "nothing" because you believe there always was God. A materialist also does not believe there ever was "nothing." Why does there ever have to have been such a thing as non-being? Second, "why" is a question about purpose and reason. But a materialist would take the assumption that purpose and reason are human concepts. There's no such thing as "why" for a non-human or non-rational object, only for a rational actor. If the universe does not act, then "why" doesn't mean anything for it. "How" describes mechanisms, "why" describes narrative. A materialist understands narrative to be a thing humans impose, not a thing that exists.
@@Essex626 There doesn’t HAVE to be; that is the question philosophy explores. There can never exist “a nothing” as the word nothing describes a privation of a thing or things. Let’s not confuse being with material. The question referenced in the video is “why is there something instead of nothing?” Don’t let’s get off track.
@@Essex626 Just a side note. There is, of course, no such thing as "why" for non-human objects -- i.e., just plain matter. But, to the materialist, humans are only machines made of just plain matter, and nothing else. Therefore, according to the materialist, the concept of "why" shouldn't exist at all, even among humans, and so we shouldn't even be having this conversation. Thus, the materialist must be wrong, since we are having this conversation.
@@johnm7012 I'm not a materialist, but that's a deeply mistaken understanding of materialism. Certainly there might be some who would say things like that. But there's a century or more of philosophical thought which is about finding and creating meaning in an existence that is not inherently meaningful. Materialists recognize we have consciousness and desire for meaning, and they don't necessarily believe it is pointless to seek to create that meaning.
The question of “things” existing refers to the material universe. As God is immaterial he doesn’t qualify. God is being, itself. Not the act of being, nor the state of being, but just being. Why? We’ll never know in this life. It’s unanswerable. But, the question of why there are “things” (stuff, states, laws, etc.) is an existential question which refers to the material universe and that is answerable.
If God is immaterial how does it act on the material? I have no problem if you are proposing a deistic god (although I can’t understand why you would waste your time worshipping it) but a theistic god must have at least part of its nature in the material.
@@ST-ov8cm no, that doesn't hold up. If your response to "Why is there being?" is well, God exists, and there is no answerable why... Well then there can be no answerable why for a materialist understanding of being either. There's no reason you get a cop-out there and they don't.
@@MillionthUsername how? If you say "God explains all of this" and someone else says "this all explains itself" what is the difference? What's the difference between saying "God has always existed" and saying "existence has always existed"?
Joe is basically giving out free college classes on TH-cam. Great stuff.
Only if this a bad college class.
@@markgamache6377 you don't have to attend.
@@ToddJambon right, I hope to learn something, but always disappointed in these Christian videos that pretend to use philosophy. I will not be watching any more of this persons content (I hope he gets better).
@@markgamache6377May you explain why you think the quality of the content is poor? I'm curious in your opinion.
@@markgamache6377 What is he saying that is logically incorrect?
Lawrence Krauss is a brilliant involuntary comedian. I remember when he presented the book, he was literally laughing at anyone who thought a universe from nothing presupposes a supernatural cause. Then he started explaining what he actually meant by 'nothing', and comedy was never the same again... Thank you, Lawrence.
Where is the evidence of the supernatural.
@@ossiedunstan4419 'super,' meaning above. 'Natural' from nature meaning the physical world. Literally everyone Joe quotes here realizes there is evidence for designed physical laws. Why do they exist? For the same reason Stephen Hawkins' book exists, because there is a designer.
This is literally the point of the video, you should watch it.
I've always found it very humorous that scientists feel that they have to explain to you why your "question" is incorrect. When pressed, the best they can come up with is, your question (as you've defined the terms) isn't open to a scientific explanation. THAT'S OUR POINT!!
So how did you go about determining that something is in fact there if it cannot be validated through science or evades the human senses to detect it? THAT'S OUR POINT
@@sandrajackson709 Glad you asked. It's possible to logically conclude of the existence of something that we don’t directly observe. You see footprints, and you reason logically from the imprint you observe to the shoe that you don’t observe. This is how scientists can theorize about events outside of the scope of our sensory experience (events long ago, or far away). Somewhat similarly, Mendeleev could predict the existence of four then-unknown elements based on the “gaps” in the periodic table.
If you see a train rushing past, you might only see boxcars, but you logically conclude that there’s an engine of some kind powering the train, since boxcars can’t power themselves.
The material world is like a boxcar. It can’t explain its own existence or motion, so we know that there’s an “engine” powering it and keeping it in motion (and existence), even though we (obviously) don’t observe God as one element in that material world.
@@shamelesspopery Does not answer the question.When I see footprints it's only logical to assume because I know feets exists. Scientist rely on observation and make a hypothesis, expirement, analyze data, and conclude from the data Nothing at all comparable to just speculating the existence of a god for it does nothing to satisfy the question is something in fact there. You simply do not get to conclude something is there by reasoning that it is there. It gives you no possible way to know that it is there for you to bring it up to a scientist. The question was not about what you believe is there, what you can best reason is there but is something actually there and showing that it is. You cannot reasons something into existence. Your reasoning means nothing if you cannot show you reasoned right. You have no follow through method and just stop at reasoning
@@sandrajackson709Because there's more to existence than just material things [and science can only go as far in this regard]. That's the ultimate point.
@@GranMaese Can you show me anything beyond just the material that is without a material cause? If not through science what reliable method do you have to go about demonstrating this conclusion?
I'm very much reminded of the story that Richard Feynman liked to tell about how to get yellow paint from white and red paint. Paraphrasing, Feynman was sitting at a cafe one day and struck up a conversation with a guy who was painting a room in the building upstairs, and the guy starts talking about how it's important to know how to mix paint to get the right colors and then explained that to get yellow paint, he would mix red and white paint together. This surprised Feynman, who didn't see how this could be possible, but couldn't figure out why this guy, who did this sort of thing for a living, would lie about something like this, asked him to show him how to get yellow colored paint from mixing red and white paint. So the guy got some red and white paint and began mixing it together, and he would put more red in, and then more white in, but it still just looked pink, no matter what he did, it wasn't yellow. Until eventually the guy said "now I just need to add a little bit of yellow from this tube here to sharpen it up a bit and then it'll be yellow."
Lol trying to make yellow out of red and white, impossible!
I might steal this...
@@shamelesspopery Please do! The original anecdote is from Feynman's book, "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman?"
Love this quote from Terence McKenna. It's always written as "limit test," but I'm pretty sure he would have said "litmus test.""
"The sober men of science are saying the universe sprang from nothing, for no reason. This is the litmus test for credulity! Science is saying, 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' I'll take mine at the end, thank you. They have the big bang, I have the big surprise."
I'm a physicist and I tell my colleagues stuff like this all the time and they just don't understand lol. Thank you
if you are a physicist, you are telling people lies. You should know better.
Are you saying you are a Magical Thinker? 😂
Good on you. I studied physics (but didn’t become a physicist), and I love thinking about it all.
Your clarity it's really unmatched. I started a bible study at my parish, and I'm trying to incorporate everything I can from your videos! Thanks for everything!
Good video as always. A minor nitpick, though it doesn't really affect the validity of your criticism: M-Theory doesn't refer to "multiverse theory". M-theory is the *hypothetical* general physical theory that unifies the 5 distinct Superstring Theories. This brings up an additional point that makes the argument put forward by Hawking and Mlodinow ridiculous: while there is certainly evidence that there is such a theory, its existence has not been rigorously established! So not only does M-Theory not answer the question, because it still requires the existence of Physical Law, as you've noted, but we don't even know what M-Theory is (if it exists) in a satisfactory way. And this doesn't even touch on the phenomenological issues, as it is not at all obvious at present that M-Theory could describe our universe.
As far as the name goes, there isn't even agreement on what the M in M-Theory even stands for. It kind of just caught on and depending on who you ask you'll hear things like "membrane", "magic", "matrix", etc. It's actually a common joke in the field to say that once M-Theory is rigorously defined we'll finally know what the M stands for!
Good catch, thank you! It's been years since I've even tried to follow the "string wars."
I think the issue with the question of why there is something rather than nothing is generally misused on both sides of the aisle. Atheists and Christians actually agree on the answer to this question in a fundamental sense. The answer is “because something has always existed.” For Christians that something that has always existed is God. For Atheists that something is whatever natural thing they believe to be eternal, be it quantum fields or whatever quantum fields originated from. Both sides agree that true nothingness only begets nothing. So the fact that anything exists at all must be because something has always existed.
I agree. I think this ultimately puts the Atheist in a difficult spot, because it means they need to explain how this “eternal stuff” that isn’t supernatural and is thus contingent, accounts for reality. It moves the scope of the explanation into the realm of philosophy, and Atheists seem to struggle to provide an elegant solution that isn’t ultimately reductive.
I'm reminded of the words of that great philosopher, Billy Preston, "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'."
But Atheists may turn it around on Christians too. I don’t think they would concede that non-supernatural eternal stuff must be contingent anymore than a Christian would concede that supernatural eternal stuff is contingent. It is hard if not impossible via human reasoning to explain HOW anything can be eternal other than just declaring that it is. This would apply to Christians explaining the nature of God or Atheists explaining the nature of their “eternal stuff”. Both sides would affirm that something is is eternal and both sides would shrug their shoulders in trying to fully explain or even comprehend the nature of the infinite.
@@jeffscully1347 hahahahahah love that song
@@jeffscully1347haha you beat me to it. That song has been playing in my mind throughout most of this video
Exactly!!! Empty space is what you find in Genesis 1 as "void", that's actually part of creation, having a void is not nothing it's a void, empty space, "darkness over the face of the deep/abyss"
then John the theologian felt the need to write a prologue to Genesis, thus we've got ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος…
how did these people get to be "scientists"?
Fantastic job explaining this! Looking forward to seeing the growth of this channel!
I am still a fan of Dawkins and Krauss for various reasons - I think they have offered a lot. But you are absolutely correct here about Krauss' confusion, and even his hubris, at least on this topic. A good reminder to always check your own arrogance and assumptions. Brilliant people are brilliant at fooling themselves.
For a physicist he really doesn't get the difference between vacuum, void and nothing. It's high school level stuff btw.
It’s third grade
@@ST-ov8cm the concept of nothing yes, it's much easier to understand, a 5 year old can get it. Vacuum is more complex, it requires the person to understand matter and energy, and also there's the issue that many people use it erroneously, saying vacuum when they actually mean reduced pressure. That's why I thought high school level would be more fitting to grasp all three.
@@BT7M yep
I think a lot of Atheists subscribe to the "it just happened" theory.
Lol they call it simply "emergent" or a "brute fact" and ignore the problem
Hahahahahahahah........simply superb Joe! with these fellas is ultimately down to pride. If our minds can't come up with the answer then one must humbly say I don't know or I can't answer that but thats a tough ask for them with their many many awards and accolades.
Great many philosophers and theologians seems to think they have figured out the answer. Yet you don't accuse them of hubris...
@@michaelanderson4849 Who are these great many philospohers and theologians you are referring ? Did they try to answer a scientific laws or theories ? did they write books about this area of study ?
@@JR-tl8tg Oh I don't know... how about a certain Aquinas?
@@michaelanderson4849 what about him?
@@JR-tl8tg He argued he had the answer to the question. And that this answer could be found through studies of the world we can observe (science).
As much as i enjoy all of Joe's videos, this one stands head and shoulders above all the others. Exposing Krause as the pompous, ill-informed scientist that he is was refreshing. This video is a masterpiece!
"I'm reminded of the words of that great philosopher, Billy Preston, "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'."
I really like watching these videos while I drink my morning coffee, it's a stimulating way to start the day. They challenge me and are engaging arguments that I may not have heard before. Keep up the great work!
I'm so looking foward to the rest of the series. You do an amazing job.
Thank you so much to explain things in a way noobs like me can understand
Thank you!
What a fantastic video [all your vids are great]. God bless.
Adding to my RCIA class materials!
I like that shirt. Can't wait for it to make an appearance on the Flannel Panel
Ha! Thanks.
Hey if nothing is something then send Krauss a bill for $100,000. And when he asks what it is for say, "Nothing." And when he balks at it say, "Nothing is not nothing, but something. And it is this something that I am charging you for."
... And should he comply you can then legitimately tell him "thanks for nothing"
Conspicuously, Krauss doesn't bother to read Aristotle and Aquinas. He can't imagine that their thought was as or more sophisticated than his own.
Joe, thank you for the great video. In addition to the question posed here, I couldn't wrap my mind around the question "How do I lead a good life, what does it even mean to live Atheism consistently?" whenever thinking about Atheism. Maybe this touches of your fifth way about saints.
As a German, I have one small point of consideration when it comes to pronunciation of the name 'Leibniz'. The German 'ei' is pronounced like the English 'ie'. If you would pronounce it like 'Liebniz' in English, it would be a perfect German pronunciation of the name.
Yay! New video, thanks Joe!
WHY? We don"t know. If someone knows and can support their answer with evidence, go ahead.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't know. I don't believe anyone knows. There are people who believe they know, but it's just a belief and not knowledge. Knowledge should be demonstrable.
>I don't believe anyone knows.
you're wrong. What would change your mind?
>There are people who believe they know, but it's just a belief and not knowledge
False. Knowlege is justified true belief, if I show you the justification for my belief and you find no flaws (besides maybe an irrational uneasiness in the conclusions) in it, you should accept it.
>knowlege should be demonstrable
it is. just not scientifically. There are many ways to demonstrate a claim without using an empirical method, for example we know that pi has infinitely many digits not because we checked, or counted them, but because we demonstrated logically there cannot possibly be a finite number of digits.
@@tafazzi-on-discord You are one of those who believes they know. I am familiar with every argument/notional idea/story in the last 4,500 years that try to demonstrate why there is something rather than nothing. None do that. That doesn't mean that what you believe is wrong, but it doesn't mean you are right either.
@@tinequeek9056 what if you misunderstood one or more of these arguments? I hope you keep in mind that's a possibility.
So, would you agree to the following two things:
1-if something can't possibly fail to exist, that explains why nothing is metaphysically impossible
2-just like redness is red, existance exists.
Probably not much more than a half a dozen people (joking) can grasp the depth of the argument Joe is making here. Yet, he does it in a way that even I can understand it.
Why is irrelevant. The more interesting question is “How is there something rather than nothing?”
FYI this question has literally nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods
Nicely done. I’d love to hear more generally philosophical content like this.
Esse tipo de vídeo nós já deixamos o LIKE antes mesmo de assistir porque sabemos que o conteúdo será Top.
Galatians 6:3
For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.
Very helpful. Thanks Joe!
"Why is there something rather than nothing?". Um....we don't know. That is the simple, correct answer.
you don't know? or you don't want to accept the answer? Because we DO know. We've known at least since Aristotle. You may not like the answer, but that's not the same thing ;-)
@@GustavoAndresHerrera I did mean "we don't know". What do you mean "we've known at least since Aristotle"? No, we really, really don't know why anything exists. It's a big mystery. And of course, many people *think* they've figured it out, but no......they have not. What "answer" do you think it is?
@@hongotedesco8931 Aristotle had figured out already that you need an immobile mover. There's a good book from Edward Feser that explains the main methods you can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. Read it, and you may still disagree afterwards, but you can't say "we have no good reason" to say logically that God exists.
Um... how do you know that because you don't know no one else can know?
Saying "We don't know" is indeed simple, but an answer - correct or otherwise - it most definitely is not.
@@hongotedesco8931 we do know. There are people with a justified, true belief that is the answer to this question. It's false we don't know. I could say "we don't know whether a single jew died in the holocaust", and I'd be saying a falsehood.
How does the I don't know above differ from yours?
I'm loving your Chanel. keep going don't stop!
“Philosophy always buries its undertakers.” - E Gilson
Does Dr. Krauss explain why empty space and laws of physics exist? Who created empty space, the laws of physics, and low energy fields ?
Thanks much for this video.
Perhaps it's true that _some_ Atheists can't answer this question, but many Atheist philosophers have adequately responded to the type of argument you raise. I'd encourage reviewing the works of J.L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Stephen Maitzen, Adolf Grunbaum, and Bede Rundle. Rundle even has entire book _Why there is Something rather than Nothing_ dedicated to his entire question.
Joe watches Matt Fradd, Jonathan Frakes' X Factor and listens to Mountain Goats. :) At least according to the youtube suggestions.
That is actually a nice song from Black Pear tree...
Hi Joe, I agree that basically all the responses from the athiests (who were sadly scientists and not philosophers sadly) were poor. I think the main problem with the existence argument is that premise 1 seems very hard to justify. I didn't catch the justification for that premise, could you clarify why you think it is true?
"Nothing" is vague, too. When I say "I know nothing," I might mean that I know about something the word "nothing" signifies. Before my brother shops for me, he may ask what else I need. But I won't say "The absence of anything."
While I agree with you that we can use the word "nothing" for an imprecise or metaphorical meaning, but replying "nothing" to "what do you need from the store" is actually a response of absence. There is an absence if items in the set of items which you need from the store.
@@461weavile If my brother asked me what I needed from the store, I couuld reply, "Nothing, Dave, but I'd like another box of granola bars."
The book also says "No refund".
Thanks for nothing Krauss
I may not be a brilliant scientific or philosophical mind, but I at least know that there are smaller and larger infinities.
But I'm prettyy sure there's just the one nothing. There's just one nothing. We just have the one nothing. Or... there just isn't one nothing, and we don't have it. There's that intelligence bit coming back up.
Why is there something rather than nothing? “God did it” is no different an answer than “We don’t know” except the latter doesn’t require one to believe in an imaginary being. Which God? Zeus? Ram? If one accepts that God can exist without cause then the universe can exist without cause. Why can we not accept that the honest answer is, “We don’t know.”
What difference does it make (at least for the purpose of the question) to ask for a precise monicker before you are willing to contemplate the Creator on which all things depend for existence.
An atheist saying NO, there was Not NOTHING, but instead some form of "SOMETHING", really just digs a deeper hole for themselves, in a number of ways. Most obviously, because the question would simply become....well OK, where did the "something" you magically believe in (talk about flying spaghetti monsters) come from, as the cause of no-thing, is found within itself! So, they just kicked the same can, a little further down the road!
The late Stephen hawking had more guts and courage with his disability than many who rely on faith from dead saints bones and relic's.
It’s telling that the most well known modern atheistic arguments contain such a simple error. I bet there are some atheists out there that cringe when these seemingly brilliant thinkers fail so pitifully. It might be better to hold to atheism by faith than because of these books. I wonder if the authors believed their own words.
An atheist could reply that the universe is a logically necessary object, that you contradict yourself if you say there was a time when there was no universe. The nonbeing of a unicorn is something, It's the lack of a unicorn.
Evil is a privation. It's the absence of something that should be present. But the word "should" could mislead us if it refers to natural evil instead of moral evil. Now that dinosaurs T. rex has died out, have we lost a kind of animal who should still be here on earth?
these hard-core naturalists are so soaked in their material things that they can not imagine nothingness.
Lack of existence being nothing; how can/(does) existence exist?
I think Joe Schmidt did a video where they give some arguements for something being nessacary
Atheists could answer the questions in these ways:
1. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe humans are incapable of understanding it.
2. Even if God did create the universe, that is a long way from proving the Christian conception of God.
There's another possible problem for Prof. Krauss. "Empty" is vague. If I tell my brother Dave that our refrigerator is empty, will he open the refrigerator door and say, "Billy, you lied. The shelves are still in it with the cold air and the lightbulb?" Of course not. He'll know I meant that we ran out of refrigerated stuff we kept in it.
I bet Prof Krauss will repeatedly check the refrigerator - knowing it is empty.
@@chrisflanigan7908 I know what that's like because I have OCD. :)
I have OCD. But the frdge door stays shut after I close it.
I seem to remember hearing Dawkins answer that question with something like, "Give science enough time and we'll why there's anything." But science assumes that there's something. If you argue scientifically for something science presupposes, your argument will be circular. It'll treat its conclusion as a premise. The conclusion becomes, you might say, evidence for itself.
Assumes that there is something? Isnt what we can observe in nature proof that there is something?
@@CaptainFantastic222 I should have said "presupposes" instead of "assumes." For scientists to do natural science, the natural world must already exist. So if I assume that the natural world's only cause is natural, too, that doesn't explain what made that world's existence possible. If the universe began to exist, its merely possible existence existed without it. Material objects have possible, non-actual properties. But no possibility is a material object.
Some atheists may tell you that the universe's existence is a brute fact. But there's a major problem with that belief. A brute fact is something that can't get explained, even in principle. So there's no way to know that. something is a brute fact. After all, the ability to identify one presupposes that the brute fact has an explanation, the thing that by definition, it can't have.
@@williammcenaney1331 gotcha. Thanks for the clarification
@@CaptainFantastic222 You're welcome. Thanks for not mentioning my stupid typo. I should dictate my comments to my computer before posting them. As you can see, my tongue flaps more accurately than I type. Be glad we're in different places because you'd hate the resulting hot air. :O. Notice the mouth gaping widely enough to swallow my left fist. :)
I think one could plausibly argue that "nothing" is a product of human imagination. It derives from the distinction between everything (beings as a whole) and what is in no way anything (nothing whatsoever). Now the irony is that the latter, as deriving from a _negation,_ is capable of many determinations. One could say it is Nothing, but one could also say it is Being, since Being (esse, to-be) is also not any thing. Metaphysicians have played on this paradox to produce many profound communications, and Alain Badiou, drawing from set-theory, has transported it into a theory on the immanence of eternal truths.
Fundamentally though, it seems to me one is speaking about immanence and (vs.) transcendence. Transcendence is what is fundamentally different from whatever-is, the temporal, the everything. Depending on the philosopher/theologian/mystic, Transcendence can take on the flavor of Being, Nothing, Ab-solute, and so on. And that is going to depend on how they draw these distinctions; and no one can say which way of drawing these distinctions is "exactly" right. The point here is that our imaginations of "nothing" (and its avatars) are derived through a distinction we ourselves are drawing (and cannot help but draw) between everything that is and its negation or negative side.
But in the end, we _cannot observe_ anything that isn't "something." We can think about it through contradistinctions, certainly we can write down words like "nothing" and "nonbeing." But to observe these in an absolute form is an absurdity, since they would imply the annihilation of being and of its observer, hence of the very possibility of observing the distinction being vs. nothing.
Martin Heidegger of course explored the Being/Nothing homophony in all of his works, and by dint of that set off a veritable revolution in metaphysics that was best traced through Derrida and Jean-Luc Nancy. On that note there is an excellent essay in _Cult and Culture_ by Jacob Taubes on Heidegger's "substantivization" of the adverbial nothing, defending him from Carnap's attack. Graham Priest has some books on this topic, though his flavoring is more of a Zen style mixed with analytical philosophy; I haven't read him though did take a course with him once. I have mentioned Alain Badiou, whose theory of being, void, event, worlds, truths, is certainly one of the most immense ever produced, and deserves the attention of theologians (he has a book _Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism_ which is a good introduction to how the theory works). But the book I would recommend to everyone here above all is Niklas Luhmann's _A Systems Theory of Religion;_ very challenging but it is his work that has inspired me, after a life of studying theology, to think about all this in a more radical and, I think, enlightening way.
Returning to my initial statement, doesn't one have to admit that "nothing" is totally beyond the reach of any operation we could make? All of our operations are with "something." Even if they be ideas or fictions, these aren't nothing.
I think those of us who are familiar with theology and terms like "nonbeing", we take for granted that there is some _signified_ corresponding to this signifier. And this _seems_ easy because we have experiences of things not being there all the time. "The house was full, now it's empty and there's nothing in it." We derive our intuition of "absolutely nothing" from such experiences of the transience of things. Then we project a total nothingness somewhere-- but where? Usually into a temporal "before" of Everything. But obviously, we have no proof of this outside of imagination (including our imaginative interpretation of the ancient cosmologies in Genesis, which we now also admit are not literal/physicalist but allegories). We have to default on the extension of a metaphor. We seem to make some sort of mental image of the negation of all "stuff" and all the "laws"--but really, what sort of mental image is this? One would have to admit, it is quite limited and (what irritates the scientists) seemingly unfalsifiable.
I think if we ask ourselves seriously, we do not really know anything about nothing, except by a hypothesis that says: "nothing" is outside the boundaries of what we can observe, e.g. being. We can then take it for its source or its negation, its animating umphf or its inglorious dissipation. Or again as the evil that attends to being by some flaw. Or again as the reality of our very existence insofar as we observe that existence from the standpoint of God (via the analogy of being, cf. Pryzwara). But as for nothing's "existence", well, it depends upon what we observe it "existing" over and against. And on top of that, obviously, _the existence of nothing is a paradox,_ including when it is hypothesized as "pre-not-existing" existence itself.
When we look at paradoxes we have to look at the unity of the difference, here, the unity of everything and nothing, and interdependence of the distinguished sides. It is the distinction we make between them that makes the difference, quite apart from the 'ontological status' of 'everything' and 'nothing', which can be arranged in countless different "framings." None of the framings can claim ultimacy, while at the same time they all converge (unity of mystical thinking) because they all come back to the same code of immanence/transcendence and the endless variety of interpretations we can put on that distinction. The difference-making is operative.
Because really, if one asks oneself seriously, what evidence do we have of "nothing," outside of speculation/imagination, that is, outside the _observation_ of the difference (the difference Heidegger called ontological and Maxence Caron calls "fundamental")? It being remembered that _to observe a distinction is always to (re)make one..._
>Now the irony is that the latter, as deriving from a negation, is capable of many determinations
No, a negation is an unambigous logical operation you can apply to any statement.
"X exists, it is something" -> apply negation -> "X doesn't exist, it is not something". "Not something" is also called "nothing".
You know when you see at title like "Atheists Can't Answer This Question" it is going to be either not a coherent question or a question that is actually very easy to answer and has been countless times.
So which do you think this one is?
@@JosephHeschmeyerIt’s the latter. The claim that “nothingness” is even a possible state of affairs seems to be completely without evidentiary support. Big bang cosmology, for example, shows us that all of the mass and energy in the universe already existed at the Planck epoch, which is the earliest measurable point in the universe’s history, so there quite literally has never been a point in time in which “something” didn’t already exist. Philosophically speaking, even a vast expanse of empty space could still rightly be called “something”, so nothingness wouldn’t even be that, and we have literally zero evidence that such an absence of any and all things is even possible.
@@TestMeatDollSteak So instead of answering the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" you're simply arguing that there's always been something. Leaving aside the possible problems with this view (infinite past duration of time), it doesn't remotely answer the question, does it?
@@shamelesspopery So, instead of justifying the assumption that is built into your question (that “nothingness” is possible), you’re apparently just sticking to your script. An infinite regression of time isn’t a problem with my view at all. The Big Bang appears to have occurred ~14 billion years ago, so the universe is past-finite; or, as some cosmologists explain, there was an earliest moment of time. How do you get from there to the idea that nothingness is possible?
If you’re simply trying to ask me to explain the universe’s origins, then I’ll quite happily admit that I can’t answer that question. So far as I’ve ever heard, no one else can explain the universe’s origins, either. I don’t know, you don’t know, scientists don’t know, religious apologists don’t know, philosophers don’t know, nobody knows.
@@TestMeatDollSteakwhy is nothing impossible? To go a step further, do you realize that the only possible answers to that questions are:
1-it's not
2-there is at least a necessary being, one that can't fail to exist.
This question is wholly unrelated to time, it's about the fact natural things are not necessary, because they come into and out of existance at certain times.
I’m glad I was never “smart” enough to ponder these things. I think it would have driven me to insanity 😂
how is empty space "something"?
You are absolutely right. This IS a religious/philosophical/metaphysical question, NOT a material one. Krauss is full of BS. Nothing means a State of Non-being, where not even the concept of Nothing exists.
It is, for the human mind, totally incomprehensible. And this is where the mind of the scientist cannot go.
Leibnitz is correct, for God alone meets the criteria of sufficient reason to explain the existence of anything, even if that anything began as an abstract concept.
not just Atheist's but many cannot answer this question, Who is the serpent? once you understand all will be made clear!
Okay but First cause, Moral Law, fine tuning, intelligent design, etc only get you as far as Deism. How do we know the Judeo Christian God specifically did all these things?
His book should have beeen titled, “And God Created Empty Space.”
Neither theists nor materialists believe there was ever such a thing as "nothing."
As God is immaterial he is not a thing. The question refers to the material universe.
@@ST-ov8cm the question does not refer to the material universe, it refers to being.
There is no reason the immaterial could always exist but the material could not also always exist.
@@Essex626 Of course it refers to the material. A thing is a thing. As to your second point; that is the question philosophy is trying to discuss. If you have some special insight, perhaps you can contribute to the conversation.
Perhaps you can explain the unmoved mover or how we can actually have infinite time or an infinite number of a thing.
Ok? 2 and 2 has always equaled 4, that doesn't tell you why.
@@Essex626 It is alwys interesting to watch the discussion about material vs immaterial and being vs non-being. Especially when those concept are tossed around with such confidence. I don't understand that confidence.
We don’t need to answer why things exist. It’s not knowable
Put in the work atheist
@@koppite9600what work? Atheism is only a lack of belief in a god, nothing more.
@@tatarsauce6314
So You don't say that there is no God?
Why is there a God and not nothing? Question answered by another unanswerable question. Also, does there being something mean the Christian God is the only answer? So answer this question: since there is something, who created it? And prove without falling back on the Bible says so.
You didn't answer the question, you literally are just restating the question. You simply put "a God" in the place of "something."
Fundamentally, your "answer" misunderstands the issue. Atheism postulates that immaterial beings cannot exist. But, if you postulate that, you have to explain how we have anything. There is no framework within materialism that allows nothing to produce something.
>Why is there a God and not nothing?
Because we observe that we do not exist in a state of nothing. Perhaps a better question would be "why is God necessary for "something" to exist?", which I'd reply that God is conceptually necessary to avoid a causal infinite regress and the logical contradictions that would entail (see: Hilbert's Hotel).
>Does there being something mean the Christian God is the only answer?
Not from that data point alone. Existence precedes essence (you can't know what something is unless you acknowledge that it exists), so first you must acknowledge the existence of God as a source of "something", then you can employ reason to inform the essence of God. If the divine origin of creation is accepted, then the Christian God is the most reasonable (rationally parsimonious) explanation.
"Since there is something, who created it?"
A non-contingent (necessary), immaterial and supernaturally powerful entity. This we call God.
Philosophically you need something which is self-existent in order to avoid the problem of an infinite regress of causes (which actually is begging the question). We see the principle of cause and effect operating everywhere, so we infer that prior to the present causes there were previous causes which caused them, backward in time. This is a very real and solid observation of reality. This is how you reason to a first cause, an un-caused cause.
I don't think you're taking all of this into consideration when you say, "Why is there a God and not nothing"? Nothing cannot produce something, so nothing is out of the picture. It is not an answer. There must be a self-existent un-caused cause. That's how we arrive at either God, a personal being and the source of all being, the Creator, or matter/energy which is dumb, mindless, will-less, etc., and can't do anything at all unless it bumps into other material randomly. These are your two choices. Now how do these causes hold up under scrutiny?
God can't possibly fail to exist, because His essence (what it is), is identical with His existance (that it is). A more modern phrasing of this concept is "He is existance itself". If existance fails to exist, then redness fails to be red? No, that's incoherent.
Was the universe created or, like your god, has it always existed? If god doesn't have a creator then why does the universe need one?
Based
Can the "nothing" that you describe ever exist? No? Then why did you spend so much time talking about something that, by definition, cannot exist.
Krauss and co. know that your "nothing" is meaningless, so they talk about other things which could be real--and that point sailed directly over your head.
This isn’t remotely difficult for atheists to answer. You first have to justify the idea that “nothingness” is even a possibility, to begin with. Literally every human experience throughout history has entailed “something” - everywhere around us, there is “something”. Even a vast expanse of empty space is still _something,_ for example, so what gives you the impression that there even has been, or ever could be, a total absence of all things? Even modern cosmology shows us that, at the very earliest moments of the Big Bang, all of the mass and energy in the universe already existed, so there quite literally has never been a point in time in the entire history of the universe that there hasn’t already been “something”.
Where did that "something" come from? To claim the existence of "something" as a brute fact merely ignores the question, either by a lack of intellectual curiosity or a hubris to believe it is a question unworthy of consideration
@@TheMadman911xx Asking where the entirety of space and time came from is an incoherent question, because it begs the question of a location that isn’t in space (locations are necessarily spatiotemporal). It’s like asking what’s north of the North Pole.
@@TestMeatDollSteak The question of origins is not "incoherent" because it's a question about ultimate causation, and we have abundant proof that cause-and-effect is how things work.
And you can't just assume materialism. You would have to establish it first.
@@TestMeatDollSteak It's not an incoherent question, it's a metaphysical question. That such a question cannot be answered through natural explanations does not invalidate it, but rather requires a different sort of analysis (e.g., philosophical inquiry) to address.
Though I do agree that the causal agent for the origin of space and time must be, by necessity, outside of space and time and thus cannot be located in the same way we locate the North Pole
@@MillionthUsername I never said that the question of the universe’s origin is incoherent. I specifically explained that asking _where_ the universe came from is incoherent, because it begs the question of a location that isn’t in space or time. That’s a nonsensical idea.
You might be able to ask _how_ or _why_ the universe came to exist - those seem to be at least coherent questions - but it doesn’t make sense to ask _where_ it came from. And, I have absolutely no idea how the universe came to exist, or why the universe expanded, and so far as I can tell no one else can explain the universe’s origins, either.
Science can only answer the questions "how" and "what". What happened? How did it happen? What caused it? What if?; these questions are the purview of science. Science cannot answer the question "Why". Now someone might reply: "But asking, 'why does energy flow from higher states to lower states?' is a why question". But this question asked in this way implies a cause that possesses will and purpose. Energy does not make a reasoning decision to move from higher states to lower states, it simply follows the laws of physics. The scientific answer to the question is a "how" and "what" answer, not a "why" answer, so the proper scientific way to ask about the flow of energy would be: "What causes energy to flow from a higher state to a lower state?" or "how does energy flow from higher to lower states?" If one askes "why" the answer become theological/philosophical.
I think that the whole misunderstanding with the definitions of nothing from Krauss and Hawking comes from a completely different mindset between philosophers and scientists. Where the philosophers are asking "Why?", the scientists only hear "how?". The philosophers who ask "why?" seem to be seeking a Teleological explanation. Science has largely rejected Teleology for the past few hundred years - which might explain the whole scientific misunderstanding. While "How does space exist" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense (kind of like "How does God exist?"), "Why does space exist" will actually be a question that makes sense to those who accept Teleology, as most religious-types seem to. But if you don't accept that Teleology is veridical, then the question probably needs to be reinterpreted (misinterpreted?) in order to make the question answerable beyond just "Its a brute fact" - which is an intensely unsatisfying answer!
Anyway, just my thoughts here, and I am just some kid haha!
Edit: Posted too soon! at around 38 minutes, you call the "How question" "remarkably incurious". I am not sure I'd call it that way, I'd just say that that question underpins an understanding of the way the universe works that scientists simply don't share.
Right. The presumption of the scientist is generally that of physicalism or materialism. The “why” and the “how” are conflated, since for them there is no “why” beyond physical and material interactions.
@@tafazzi-on-discord I'm actually not saying "Theology", but rather, "Teleology", which is a branch of metaphysics about "ends" or "purposes". Teloi, the plural of Telos, were the 4th Cause in Aristotlean physics.
@@christopherponsford8385 right , exactly- "why" is kinda a moot point if we reject Teleology
@@Kevigen whopps, misread it, my bad
Yes, Krauss is actually pretty explicit that even though he's asking "Why," he actually only intends to answer "How" (which he doesn't actually answer, but that's beside the point). In his words, "in science we have to be particularly cautious about 'why" questions. When we ask, 'Why?' we usually mean 'How?' If we can answer the latter, that generally suffices for our purposes. For example, we might ask: 'Why is the Earth 93 million miles from the Sun?' but what we really probably mean is, 'How is the Earth 93 million miles from the Sun?' That is, we are interested in what physical processes led to the Earth ending up in its present position. 'Why' implicitly suggests purpose, and
when we try to understand the solar system in scientific terms, we do not generally ascribe purpose to it. So I am going to assume what this question really means to ask is, 'How is there something rather than nothing?' 'How' questions are really the only ones we can provide definitive answers to by studying nature, but because this sentence sounds much stranger to the ear, I hope you will forgive me if I sometimes fall into the trap of appearing to discuss the more standard formulation when I am really trying to respond to the more specific 'how' question."
So he hears the philosophical problem "why is there something rather than nothing?," realizes that the natural sciences can't answer "why" questions like this, and so he claims to answer it by redefining "why" to mean "how," and "nothing" to mean "something."
Nothing you have stated provides credible evidence that you have a specific version of a Magical Invisible Friend. Dismissed. Next!
Nice haircut
Hawking did not then, but know now, that God IS! But God is not just an answer, He is THE Mystery the Faithful will contemplate for eternity.
Has anyone ever witnessed a nothing ? The something may well be a brute fact, with a god or not.
The something may well be a something, but calling it a brute fact and leaving it at that is just lazy
Listen, we clearly can't ask that much from modern scientists when it comes to philosophy. These are the people that gave the name "atom" to particles that can be divided into further. Poor guys are just not cut up to properly thinking about these issues.
When they were named atoms we didn't know they could be split.
The philosophical battle between the opposing ideas for the existence of an "atomos" was, on the other hand, somehow something to be admired. Is that a somewhat correct description of your position? Despite the fact that they had basically nothing but "trust me bruh" to support either view. Sell an idea with a fancy worded presentation which "sounds good" to a sufficiently large group and you had a "philosophical truth". The scientific method came along and gave plenty of old philosophical ideas some nasty wedgies.
I was an atheist for about 5 years and got really into many of the atheist thinkers you listed. I happen to have read Krauss' book you're referring to. I have to admit, I'm a bit critical still of various arguments for God's existence even as a believer. My criticism of your basic argument is that it establishes that the non-existence of things would be a result of the non-existence of God (some potential problems with that idea, but I'll leave them for now). But it doesn't establish that God's existence is the only possible precondition for the existence of things. You're saying if A then B. Then you say B, therefore A. It doesn't necessarily follow. More accurately, you're saying this. If not A therefore not B. B, therefore A. Premise one may be true. But it doesn't follow that A is therefore the only precondition for B. If we established B exists if and only if A, then given B exists we would necessarily have to conclude that A exists. You're argument doesn't make it quite that far.
But what I do find interesting is that how Krauss and others answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing" is, at its core, the same answer Aquinas gives for the existence of God. Krauss' presupposition is the same as Aquinas' conclusion, that there must be some bruit fact, some non-contingent reality in a category all it's own from which all else derives it's being.
What I am skeptical of is the very idea or nothing as such. An atheist can validly say that the very idea of nothing in absolute terms is meaningless. It's self negating. It's a contradiction to refer to the "being of nothing," which is what the question you're asking does. "Why is there something rather than nothing" pits the "is" of something against the "is" of nothing. An atheist can validly say this is a completely meaningless question because the very idea of the "is" of nothing is a contradiction in terms and therefore negates itself, and thus has no meaning. Since the second part of the question negates itself, the question reduces to a mere observation that things exist. It's sort of like asking what blue smells like. Grammatically it qualifies as a question we can ask. But it confuses categories in a way that renders the question meaningless, and thus no question at all. I agree that the existence of things leaves us demanding an explanation. But I don't think this question is the best way to get at an answer. I think Aquinas gets at it better with the argument from contingency. It doesn't prove God per se. But it's a solid first step because it shows there must be something categorically other and non-contingent upon which all else depends.
So, in a round about and back door sort of way, I'm arriving at the same point you are.
This is why the scientific "proofs" for God really shouldn't be treated as proofs. Your position is understandable given our culture, but it's a bit of a misrepresentation of the religious perspective
Yes, there are any number of non-God causes of the universe that we could conceive of. We could be in a simulation in a world with a whole different set of laws of logic. We could be created by a deceitful god. We could have an amoral creator outside of time.
This doesn't prove that God exists. It demonstrates that the best explanation for existence is an eternal being outside space and time. And from there, we make leaps of faith. As a matter of faith, most humans believe in morality and truth. For those things to meaningfully exist (opposed to being conventions of evolution), there must be an eternal standard of morality and truth. So we ascribe that to God. If the discovery of truth is good (as we assume by faith), then we can reason that God would want us to discover his nature which gives us reason to expect revelation.
Then we look to history and we see the universality of religiosity in man and we conclude that we're predisposed towards divine worship, not belief naturalism. And we see that some people like Jesus managed to miraculously convince millions of people that he raised from the dead with such certainty that they would die for the faith. And we see that he left behind a church with scripture that is remarkably coherent and timeless.
The point being, the contingency arguments are only a part of the bigger picture. Religion is ultimately based in faith and that's not a bad thing. My faith in religion is no more of a belief than my faith that gravity will still work when I walk outside
@@sivad1025 I 100% agree with everything you just said. I stuck to a first cause argument above so as not to write a novel in one comment. But everything you said represents precisely the next steps I would take to explain why I believe in God, and specifically Christ. Faith is the final key ingredient to positive belief in anything, I would argue. All the logical arguments can point you in the right direction, but faith is finally what moves you through the door. Just reiterating your point. I'm not sure I could put in any better. Completely agree!
I criticised Joe's particular argument and referenced Aquinas not to suggest a logical proof for God. But to say that if we're going to use logical argumentation to argue for our belief in God, which I think we should, I find the argument Joe laid out to have fatal flaws when leveled at atheists. I think there are better arguments. In addition, the precise points you make take the next steps toward supporting belief in God.
@@timrichardson4018 Got it, I thought you were suggesting that the argument altogether fails because it doesn't get you to God definitively even though it's useful as one part of a broader argument. But I completely agree with your reply.
Christianity has done a weird thing in the last couple centuries. We used to be the leaders of scientific discovery because we understood it in the context of faith. But then the critics latched on to the scientific process, threw out the faith part and suddenly Christians have decided to play ball in their court and make proofs without faith. It's all a futile exercise. Sure, it's theoretically possible that 2+2=5 and humans have evolved to have faulty logic that misperceives 2+2 as 4. But at a certain point, extreme agnosticism stands in the way of discovery. There's no shame in biting the bullet of faith
Just to point out one thing, when you talk about Krauss and his "something from nothing", his "nothing" is actually really "something" (I think it was just marketing to give it that title). BUT, ultimately we still don't know why his "nothing" exists. Bottom line, we really can't answer the question "why does anything exist?".
Another way to put it given that we know our universe had a beginning, is that yes, there is a creator (C), but the only attribute we can ascribe C is that "it created at least one universe". Eg, C could be a 15 yr old hacker in an encapsulating universe that wrote some code....and here we are. Or the god of the bible. Or the Kraussian "nothing". But no matter what, we're still left with the question "why does anything exist?". And I don't think we'll ever figure that out.
Tim, Thanks for your comment! The argument I’m using is a modus tollens, which is a standard form of (logically-valid) syllogism. The form goes:
P1. If A is true, B is true.
P2. B is not true.
C. Therefore, A is not true.
So for instance, make A “it is raining” and B “the ground is wet.” If it is raining, the ground is wet. The ground isn’t wet. Therefore, it isn’t raining. As long as your two premises are true, the conclusion logically follows.
In the argument I used in this episode, A is “God does not exist” and B is “nothing exists.” If A is true, B is true: If God does not exist, nothing exists. But B is not true: it’s not true that “nothing exists.” Therefore, A (the non-existence of God) is false. Admittedly, this is more confusing because there are more negatives -- it's an argument negating God's non-existence -- just as it would be harder to follow the argument if I said, “if it is raining, the ground is not dry.” But logically, it’s just as sound as any other modus tollens.
"Why is there something ratherthan nothing?" Uh, because there is something, and not nothlng? There is no "WHY"?
Understanding of a topic gives you answer to why questions. Why do we have two eyes? We didn't know the answer until the theory of evolution gave us a worldview able to answer it: because bilateral symmetry is the body plan with the best fitness for mobile animals, and there is little evolutionary incentive in losing both eyes, or gaining new pairs. You can prove both of those statements. That gives you an answer to the why. That means evolution is a richer understanding of the world than other ideas.
Similarily, atheism can't answer that question, but theism can. That makes theism a richer understanding of the world.
Hawking
Our universe exists because there are other universes that made it so ….
Hahahaha how he made the simple question of how one universe came to be from nothing … to infinitely more complex issue on how multiple universes came to exist from nothing and how they are able to interact with one another to both create and destroy other universes
Thanks be to God Christianity can answer the most difficult questions. Why because Jesus said, "the Holy Spirit will tell you all truth".
People come up with convoluted, intellectually empty anti-religion arguments like this so they don't have to do penance for their sins. If God is real, they have to repent and ask Him for mercy, just like the rest of us sinners. If God being real didn't effect their lives like that, they would never write such wastes of paper and ink as these books. They would simply stand aside, not believe, and move on with their lives. But because God offers mercy and love, they want to shirk their responsibilities so that they can't enter into that. It's so gross.
How does the Pope disagree with God's Word?
He doesn't.
0+0=0
Things exist
therefore,
God, the sufficient reason for the Mystery of Being
Neil of Grass Tyson
Any theist out there who whole heartedly rejects the idea that something can come from nothing should just as enthusiastically reject the idea that god created the universe and everything in it from total nothingness (creatio ex-nihilo). If, on the other hand, you DO want to argue that god created the entirety of physical reality (time, space, energy, mass, matter, etc) from complete nothingness, then just admit that you’re perfectly fine and dandy with the idea that something can come from nothing. You would just then have to think that plugging a deity into the equation there somehow makes a nonsensical idea make sense, which I don’t agree with.
You have a misunderstanding that is simple to solve.
Creation ex nihilo means that God did not organize preexisting "stuff" to make the word, He produced, He caused to be into existance in all senses of the word "caused", the substance (or "stuff") that makes up the physical world, including space and time.
There cannot ever be a sinlge moment of nothingness, because God exists necessarily always. That's the point of the argument. You're wrong, I know this is not enough to convince you that you are, but once I do do you promise to become a theist?
@@tafazzi-on-discord TH-cam keeps deleting my replies to you in this thread. I didn’t use any profanity or insulting language, didn’t post any links, didn’t copy/paste anything, but it keeps disappearing my replies in this thread.
@@tafazzi-on-discord So, this is now my fourth attempt to reply to your comment; TH-cam has removed all of my previous attempts for no obvious reason.
Creatio ex nihilo does not makes sense because neither existence itself, nor acts of creation, nor acts of causation make any sense whatsoever without a time or a place for them to occur. If God isn’t in time or space, then you can equally say that he isn’t anywhere (in no location or no point in space) for any amount of time (at no point in time). Things that don’t exist can also rightly be said to not be in any point in space for any amount of time.
All acts of creation, whether done by an intelligent being such as a human or done by the unguided laws of physics, that we ever see or experience are _ex materia;_ they’re essentially rearrangements of pre-existing “stuff” forming new/novel “stuff”. Causation and creation are events that happen in time and space - “stuff” interacts with some other pre-existing “stuff” and makes “new stuff”. The idea of creatio ex nihilo robs acts of creation or causation of all their meaning by robbing them not only of a time or a place for them to occur, but also by not having any THINGS to have acted upon! It does not make one single solitary iota of sense. You are, whether you want to own it or not, essentially just saying that all of time, space, and physical reality just instantly popped into existence, and that god “did it” in some way that you can’t even endeavor to clarify or explain. That’s basically just like saying “It was magic!” performed by a magician who isn’t anywhere for any amount of time.
If there is an all powerful, all knowing god who actually WANTS me to know that he exists, then it would take more than me simply getting philosophically on board with the idea of a timeless, spaceless, changeless mind who pops everything into existence from a total absence of all things, to convince me he exists. There’s still the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of evil, and numerous historical and scientific problems with Christianity and all other religions, in general. I’d have to meet him and directly interact with him, and have him explain everything to me in a way that actually makes sense.
@@TestMeatDollSteak All acts of creation either imply rearrangement of stuff on the same level of existance, or *producion* on a lower level of existance. We can produce ideas, arguments, poetry, fictional character. These exist, they are objects of our speech, but they are on a lower level of existance than, say, the physical. For God it's the same. He isn't producing another God, another thing with the same substance He is made of, He is creating ex nihilo something on a lower level of existance, which are created substances.
I can explain how God did it only by analogy, because it's obviously not a repeatable event, but let's talk about the creation of Middle Earth: Tolkien was the author at level of existance A, and he produced something on level of existance A-1, which specifically is "fiction". This existance is only sustained if something in level of existance A supports it, now Tolkien is dead but Middle Earth is still an object of our discourse, because there are people like me and maybe you on level of existance A that sustain it as a concept, through our minds and speech. God alone is at level of existance 0, above which there is no other because by definition God is existance itself. You can see creation ex nihilo in an analogous way to Tolkien making Middle Earth.
>There’s still the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of evil
Those just deny that God is the foundation of morality. Some deists take that position.
All acts of creation either imply rearrangement of stuff on the same level of existance, or producion on a lower level of existance. We can produce ideas, arguments, poetry, fictional character. These exist, they are objects of our speech, but they are on a lower level of existance than, say, the physical. For God it's the same. He isn't producing another God, another thing with the same substance He is made of, He is creating ex nihilo something on a lower level of existance, which are created substances.
I can explain how God did it only by analogy, because it's obviously not a repeatable event, but let's talk about the creation of Middle Earth: Tolkien was the author at level of existance A, and he produced something on level of existance A-1, which specifically is "fiction". This existance is only sustained if something in level of existance A supports it, now Tolkien is dead but Middle Earth is still an object of our discourse, because there are people like me and maybe you on level of existance A that sustain it as a concept, through our minds and speech. God alone is at level of existance 0, above which there is no other because by definition God is existance itself. You can see creation ex nihilo in an analogous way to Tolkien making Middle Earth.
>There’s still the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of evil
Those just deny that God is the foundation of morality. Some deists take that position.
The term or concept of nothing is a non sequitur, surely. It's an incomprehensible nonsense. All that can be is being, or something. Nothing can't be, because if it was (which again is a nonsense) then something couldn't be. In the absence of matter and energy, the only thing that can exist is being or mind. So what we mistakenly think of as nothing, due to the absence of matter, is actually not nothing but being. Something always has to be for anything to exist at all, because there's no such thing as nothing, and since matter and energy has not existed eternally, then something has to exist eternally to bring it into existence, and the only thing that can exist is being, or mind. It's remarkable that a man will say "my brain" or "my body," as if he has a brain and has a body that he uses and lives in, yet is somehow ontologically separate and distinct from it. We just are, just as God just is, and we derive our being from his being whilst being separate from his being. And so, the question of why there is something rather than nothing is also a non sequitur, because nothing can't be, only being can be.
>So what we mistakenly think of as nothing, due to the absence of matter
We call that "void". Using precise language helps understanding.
The concept of nothing is logically sound, it doesn't entail a contradiction (unlike say "four sided triangle"), it's not a logical impossibility but it's a metaphysical impossibility because God is a necessary being in all possible worlds.
@tafazzi-on-discord I guess it's a semantic issue. Nothing and void are conceptually the same thing. The bible says the earth was a formless void. How can something be nothing? What the bible means to say is that it was unformed. The mistake is to think that a void is something when it's not. That's the mistake Krauss makes. Absolute nothing is an impossibility. Infinite space is absolute nothing.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 no, in philosophy they've been distinct ever since Aristotle. Nothing is the abscence of being, void is that which has the potential to house a substance, they're different.
The (world) was void, Genesis 1 picks up after the Universe was already created.
Absolute nothing is an impossibility, I agree, and it is an impossibility because there is a being that cannot possibly fail to exist: God
@tafazzi-on-discord Okay, I see what you mean. So the question therefore is, is what we call the void actually being itself?
@@myrddingwynedd2751 I don't think so, God is being itself. You can obtain a void by removing all matter in a certain area of space, void is a created thing because space is created. God is not created.
Fine Tuning: The universe’s physical constants are fine tuned for life and extremely improbable. Not just carbon life but any life, because if it were a little bit different, then it would be something like completely crushed or so on. The physical constants being necessary wouldn’t make much sense. There’s nothing saying they are necessary. Furthermore, Why then would we have a set of necessary constants that happen to be fine tuned? Some will use the multiverse as an objection. First of all, the multiverse is a theory with no evidence whatsoever. Theories like the black hole theory have been debunked. There are also scientific reasons to believe there is not a multiverse. Beyond this, there’s many problems and contradictions with actual infinites, meaning their probably not possible. Beyond even this, even if there were life in a universe, it would probably be a bunsen brain, or a single observer popping in and out of existence, with false memories, and a simple universe. You know you are not a bunsen brain because your still here aren’t you? There is still technically a possibility we get us right? Well, imagine if you had a poker game. And someone got 5 royal flushes in a row. It would be more probable that you are in a universe where someone cheated than probability allowed it. You would have to get rid of all probability if you were to say that, and not be surprised by anything anymore. Furthermore, a multiverse would also have to be fine tuned to create other universes. And the “Meta Laws” Atheists talk about are things eerily similar to gods.
Necessity:
Is the universe just unexplainable? Well, there’s nothing showing it is. Imagine seeing a ball and asking, “why is it here”, and someone said “it was just always here.” It wouldn’t make much sense. Some ask if the Universe is Necessary but we have the same problem. Furthermore, I can at least imagine the universe not existing. Sure, I can imagine God not existing, but not everything I can imagine is possible. I can imagine unproven math equations are either true or false, but it’s necessarily going to be either one or the other. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that doesn’t make them necessary. It doesn’t mean they have to exist, merely it’s a physical law of the universe, but it doesn’t say anything about how it all started, for example. And could you, for example, imagine the universe being made of a different fundamental matter? I could. But with God, we have definitions like, “The greatest thing conceived”. Since God is the “greatest” thing, God cannot be something different, even if people have different opinions on God, God is either one or the other. God cannot not exist, because God is greatest, meaning He has Perfect Power, OmniPotent, He is Perfectly Knowing (Omniscient), He also has Perfect Existence, or is Necessary by His own definition. It’s like with fire, fire must be hot, that is part of its own definition. But a house on the other hand could or could not be brown, or could and could not be necessary. Whereas, God by definition, is Necessary, and is the only thing we have like that. You could say you don’t believe in things such as “good” or “greater”, which has its own philosophical problems. But nevertheless, that doesn’t change anything, because then it’s leaves you without explanation. Whereas if God’s Definition is true, then that simply means that this Argument is Valid. And God is really the only thing that fits as we have seen. You could say there isn’t a such thing as things not existing, or coming into existence. Just preexisting things changing. And that there never is a time where things leave existence. However, this would again, just be like saying that everything’s just here, and there’s no reason for it. The ball analogy. So, it isn’t very good. We do know things like unicorns don’t exist, so what’s to say why the universe exists in the first place? And that is the point of this argument.
Intelligibility of the Universe: Joe Heshmyer actually did a great video on it. Think about this, why can math make any type of science intelligible? Is God a mathematician? Why is the universe so intelligible? This shows a type of order that shouldn’t be there in chaos, or when things are caused by random chance.
Kalam Argument:
1. Everything has a cause to its existence
2. This cannot my go into infinite regression
3. Something cannot cause itself into existence
4. Therefore, there is a first cause (God)
Premise 2 is what most people have a problem with. This is the Kalam Argument. You can reword it to the regular Cosmological Argument to show that even if there was a train without infinite boxcars, that wouldn’t explain why the train is moving. Similarity, an infinite number of contingent things cannot account for the existence of one contingent thing. That again gets into Necessity and contingency. Besides that, there are contradictions that come up with an infinite past. An infinite future is possible due to it not being an actual infinite. Doing math with infinites is possible due to them not being actual infinites. Think about like with time travel. If you kill yourself in the past, it creates a contradiction. Therefore, some people actually see the timeline just simply intervening and not allowing this to happen, which shows some kind of God-like intervention. There’s the infinite civilization problem with an infinite past, as well as the problem of never reaching the present. There are other objections I’m not gonna get to, but the problem is, that actual infinites have contradictions that seemingly make them impossible. And therefore, an infinite past cannot be possible. Plus, for atheism to work you’d now have to both assume there’s an infinite past and a multiverse!
We can know things about God, like that there is a God through referencing the universe and logic. However, we cannot know everything about God through logic. That leads us to divine revelation. One way to tell what is true is through miracles. I encourage people to look at Fatima, or the Resurrection, or Zeitoun, or Guadalupe, or Lourdes, etc.
he should stop trying to a VOID the issue
Is there a sufficient reason, besides God, to answer why there's something rather than nothing?
It seems like answering this question will definitely direct one's life to "somewhere"....
In my understanding, not quietly. I think it all goes back to the first podcast of this series: it requires a motor which moves without being moved, which is set apart from creation. And that is God, maybe not the christian God (that would require some more development of this idea), but certainly some sort of deity.
@@thormallet I see. I'm looking forward to seeing someone makes an argument that supports the idea of a deity who doesn't sound like the God of the Bible or any kind of god.
Thanks for the comment, by the way. Have a blessed day!
The answer of God however, is just repeating the problem. If God exists, then there is something. Even if someone wants to argue about material or immaterial or outside space and time, it doesn't matter. If God exists, they exist in the cosmos at large, but then we are left with the same question. Why is there something rather than nothing? We have to accept a brute fact, and the problem for the theist is justifying why a god of any kind would be more likely to exist _on top of_ the cosmos existing, and why the cosmos could not exist without any such being.
People tend to then argue from first cause, but this assumes a first cause and that infinite regress is impossible, rather than merely uncomfortable.
@@Rogstin That's not just uncomfortable, it's necessary logically. And that is the very reason why God does exist and cannot not exist, because He's beingness in itself and existence is meraly in dependency of Him.
The question simply doesn't apply for this matter, because it's of a different nature than what we were talking about.
Maybe I could be a little bit more clear, but I hope you get my general point.
Have a good one!
@@thormallet _And that is the very reason why God does exist and cannot not exist, because He's beingness in itself and existence is meraly in dependency of Him._ That just doesn't follow, and is a contradiction of an infinite regress if *it* starts with God.
There is nothing about reality that requires a being like God, and to suppose it does only begs the question of why a god, and not a god for god? You can try to claim it's a different class, but it really isn't, or at least, no one has demonstrated how it is. Of course, any god granted by a first cause argument is a long way from anyone's personal god. However, such a god isn't justified by such cosmological arguments regardless.
What’s this evolution you speak of? Lol! Thanks Joe!!
Why are great physicists so bad at understanding pretty elementary level philosophy
Everything begins from nothing, all physical matters and spiritual begun from Zero level, meaning nothing. By nothing does not mean emptiness. God is the cause of everything that exists
"Is" and "nothing" cannot be used at the same time, because "is" describes some state of existence, which "nothing" should not have.
Statement P1 of the existence argument does not make sense. "If god did not exist, no things would exists". But god exists, so at least one thing exists. P1 is therefore wrong and cannot be used as the base of a conclusion. If the premise is wrong, you cannot conclude anything from that.
In fact you complain about the re-definition of nothing, but accept the existence of a god as not violating the"nothing". If "nothing" would be as you intend it should be seen, you would also exclude a god from that nothingness.
But there are other reasons why that entire reasoning is useless. You could replace "God" with anything, and the logic would be the same, e.g. replace "God" with "Hyperdimensional Spacemonster". Do you think the Hyperdimensional Spacemonster exisits? Linkely not.
Statement P1 is that if God does NOT exist, then nothing would exist. It is not postulating a situation where there is nothing and God exists. You are quite confused.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw I only point out that you cannot say something like "nothing would exist" because it is contradicting. "Existence" describes a state of something in relation to time. And your "nothing" does not have time.
Is there any proof that "If god did not exist, no things would exists" is a true statement? What about the statement "If the Hyperdimensional Spacemonster did not exist, no thing would exist". How can you argue that the one true and the other one not?
Unfortunately, scientists are not the only people who struggle with conversations contrary to their beliefs. The reason for the conversation is that he needs others to believe what he believes. That's not because he genuinely wants others to see the truth. He needs others to agree with his version of truth, because if enough people can agree with him his truth can actually be true. The real issue is that he cannot defend his view. So he attempts to redefine the parameters so he can defend his "truth".
God is byhond being able to be defined. Why can't we say the same for existence itself. Backing up on the why's of what we are meets up with mystery. Mystery which is by definition nothing we know. That's not "nothing". That's nothing we know to define, or able to know. Just like what God is.
The God of the Bible wants us to believe. But science will never be the final answer (proof) to belief. But what we are looks for God. The question is what makes us find Him. A science of God!?
Funny how evil proves God more than good does. We need an explanation before our battered dignity. Only a transcendent something before nothing can fill that space. Only a God suffering the same as us could explain the deep nothingness of evil in our lives. Only love has the definition of giving itself away, when nothing is forcing it to do so.
AMAZING CONTENT but presentation is too 'square.' Not to say be all hipster but small things. Like the into sounds like im watching a cheese old grandma tea time show.
So your comment about "how" instead of "why" being an incurious position misses the point.
From a materialist perspective, asking "why" for something that is non-human is nonsensical. "Why" is a question which implies reason and purpose, and to a materialist those are not things which exist except as assigned by humans. So a universe can't have a why.
Note here, I'm not a materialist or an atheist, at least not at this point.
Not really. In the sense you propose how and why can mean the same thing. Why is there something can be explained by how it got here. But, it cannot be explained as having come from nothing.
@@ST-ov8cm You're incorrect in your assessment, as I understand materialism (I'm not a materialist currently).
First of all, you're assuming there ever was a "nothing." Except you don't believe there ever was "nothing" because you believe there always was God. A materialist also does not believe there ever was "nothing." Why does there ever have to have been such a thing as non-being?
Second, "why" is a question about purpose and reason. But a materialist would take the assumption that purpose and reason are human concepts. There's no such thing as "why" for a non-human or non-rational object, only for a rational actor. If the universe does not act, then "why" doesn't mean anything for it. "How" describes mechanisms, "why" describes narrative. A materialist understands narrative to be a thing humans impose, not a thing that exists.
@@Essex626 There doesn’t HAVE to be; that is the question philosophy explores. There can never exist “a nothing” as the word nothing describes a privation of a thing or things. Let’s not confuse being with material.
The question referenced in the video is “why is there something instead of nothing?” Don’t let’s get off track.
@@Essex626 Just a side note. There is, of course, no such thing as "why" for non-human objects -- i.e., just plain matter. But, to the materialist, humans are only machines made of just plain matter, and nothing else. Therefore, according to the materialist, the concept of "why" shouldn't exist at all, even among humans, and so we shouldn't even be having this conversation. Thus, the materialist must be wrong, since we are having this conversation.
@@johnm7012 I'm not a materialist, but that's a deeply mistaken understanding of materialism.
Certainly there might be some who would say things like that. But there's a century or more of philosophical thought which is about finding and creating meaning in an existence that is not inherently meaningful.
Materialists recognize we have consciousness and desire for meaning, and they don't necessarily believe it is pointless to seek to create that meaning.
Let's turn this back around. Why is there a God instead of no God?
The question of “things” existing refers to the material universe. As God is immaterial he doesn’t qualify. God is being, itself. Not the act of being, nor the state of being, but just being. Why? We’ll never know in this life. It’s unanswerable. But, the question of why there are “things” (stuff, states, laws, etc.) is an existential question which refers to the material universe and that is answerable.
If God is immaterial how does it act on the material? I have no problem if you are proposing a deistic god (although I can’t understand why you would waste your time worshipping it) but a theistic god must have at least part of its nature in the material.
Because "no God" can't explain all that we see, only God can.
@@ST-ov8cm no, that doesn't hold up.
If your response to "Why is there being?" is well, God exists, and there is no answerable why...
Well then there can be no answerable why for a materialist understanding of being either. There's no reason you get a cop-out there and they don't.
@@MillionthUsername how?
If you say "God explains all of this" and someone else says "this all explains itself" what is the difference? What's the difference between saying "God has always existed" and saying "existence has always existed"?