Why Something

Rather than nothing?  

Why Something

Rather than nothing?  

 
 

Answering the biggest question of all:  Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Occam's razor and the law of parsimony: "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" or more simply put, "the simplest explanation is usually the right one."  


"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"

 By 


 
 Why is there something rather than nothing... "the nothing made it."


The universal story of our origin, the Big Bang  postulates that 13.7 billion years ago the universe emerged from a singularity, a point of infinite density and gravity. Before this event, space and time did not exist (meaning the Big Bang took place at no place and at no time).

 I'll give it to 'em, that is simple, simple-minded.  After a reasonable scientific explanation of a point of singularity with an infinite density and gravity, please explain where in science that concept came from. And if it took place when there was no time, and no place, then there would be no space to contain the singularity. 

No disrespect to Werner Heisenberg's work on his uncertainty principle, but the statement of something coming from nothing, which works well in theology where the causal effect is an omniscient, omnipotent God and irreducibly complex systems are a snap to produce; becomes an irreducibly complex problem in physics with their empty little toolbox.

If Rationality Rules Then Why Is Teleology The Dirtiest Word At PNAS? 


Teleology is defined as the reason, explanation for something existing, as the end, the purpose, the designer's functional goal, like the shape and structure of the wings of a bird for flight.

Extrinsic is defined as a function of causal use. The purpose imposed from outside by say a human's use of a corn cob. The use is not part of the essential nature of the corn cob, but comes from the human's use of it.

 
Why Is Intelligent Design Theory Anathema to pnas?


The short answer: because it's embarrassing for evolutionary proponents to try to argue against design, which implies creative insight and forethought (intelligence) as in the perfect curvature of a seagull's wing, the ingenious design of their light weight structurally perfect hollow bones, the brilliant design of their respiratory system for sustained flight, all point to 
aeronautical engineering, not chance.

Corn cobs can serve a functional purpose they were not designed for. Toilet paper on the other hand was designed to serve that purpose and can help removing a speck from your eye. The difference between something that's designed for a specific purpose as opposed to something that is forced into a functional use is obvious.

At the heart of this argument is Intelligence, which evolutionists cannot match with their random chance processes no matter how cleverly they may try to repackage them.

What should be an absolute confirmation of the existence of a Creator becomes an unsolvable issue reduced to the level of absurdity with multiverses (multiple universes).      

Physicists today, laboring under constraining contractual agreements have had to let go of the conventional definition of reality to retain their position. Yet, they still try to convince the scientific community and general public that they understand quantum physics. Consensus: No one understands quantum physics. No one.

From my fledgling understanding, am I saying they are wrong? No, and yes. I am impressed with their ability to get arguments airborne, but, their landings are a downright disaster.

Scientists today in this field are dying the death of a thousand qualifications from the PNAS that scientists of earlier generations were not under. They have matter, energy, time, space and some laws of physics to solve the most complex questions ever known to mankind.

Intelligence and some other considerations are outside their toolbox. In other words, they are to solve these complex problems by the few known natural processes alone. They actually do a rather brilliant job trying to explain the impossible without a rational causality.

Teleology in Intelligent Design is their third rail.

Bless their hearts, this 2.5% of the scientific community has an option, work within the PNAS constraints or not be gainfully employed. Other areas of science work to make the world a better place by producing beneficial things without the contrived limitations placed upon the theoretical physicist. My condolences. 

Then there's always those in theology who want to try and explain away special creation one way or another.  Here's Wayne Grudem at Biola on that issue.

GOD AND PHYSICS


“Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One’s secrets.
I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.”  

Einstein in a letter to Max Born in 1926

The “Old one” & “He” Einstein refers to is God. The fame of this quotation stems from two sources: 1) Einstein’s disagreement with the fundamental concept of Quantum Mechanics that at the quantum (i.e. atomic) level nature and the universe are totally random, namely events happen by mere chance; 2) Einstein’s views about religion and God.

Einstein was not an atheist as he said himself in an interview in 1929. Einstein had his personal views about religion and he believed in what he called “cosmic religion” where God’s presence was evident in the order and rationality of nature and the universe in all its aspects and expressions. Chaos and randomness are, therefore, not part of nature (“God does not play dice”).

According to Einstein, “cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research”. In his opinion, the goal of a scientist should be to try to begin to understand the universe. Einstein had a deep feeling of awe in front of nature and the universe and he believed that “strenuous intellectual work and the study of God’s Nature are the angels that will lead me through all the troubles of this life with consolation, strength, and uncompromising rigor” (in a letter to Pauline Winteler, 1897).  

READ MORE


 

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.  There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.  Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.   Psalm 19:1-4

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,  in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.   Romans 1:19-20


Former atheist Lee Strobel, arrived at this end result years ago, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to make, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

 If an eternal Creator does exist, what kind of Creator is He?  Can we infer things about Him from what He created?  In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects?  The answer is yes, to a certain extent:

  •  He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). 
  •  He must be powerful (exceedingly). 
  •  He must be eternal (self-existent). 
  •  He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). 
  •  He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). 
  •  He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. 
  •  He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). 
  •  He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. 
  •  He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. 
  •  He must be intelligent. Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. 
  •  He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. 
  •  He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). 
  •  He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

Know anyone in business, science, the arts, philosophy like that? How about theology? 

"My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is, and why it exists at all." 
Stephen Hawking


The late Stephen Hawking's simple aspiration to completely understand the universe and why it exists at all was a bridge far too far. 

Considering the complexity of our universe, along with mankind's inherent limitations, it was only an admirable dream at best. 

The world of theoretical science is rife with this condescendingly arrogant attitude, while the definitions alone restrict knowledge to simple “acceptance,” “confidence,” “probability."  

The most rational, reasonable explanation for the existence of everything is that an extremely powerful, transcendent, immaterial intelligence created it. And believe it or not, according to Scripture that's exactly how it did begin.

Mankind is the  sine quā nōn  of all of God's creation, the crowning glory you might say, not an afterthought of matter and energy, which have no thoughts, or afterthoughts.

We were created by God, in God's image with the requisite attributes for fellowship with God not fellow-regency with God. God is God, and we're not, never will be. Share that with your Mormon friends if you honestly love and care about them.

God purposely left abundant evidence of His handiwork all throughout His creation. He also provided Special Revelation of Himself in His Word. The most important things in this life don't come from the things we can see, but from the One we can see in and through the things He has made.