Lawrence Krauss in his book " A Universe from Nothing : Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" points to dark matter, quantum fluctuations, dark energy as things possibly in existence before the big bang. He admits his book redefines Something as Nothing, he admits it is speculation based off what we have observed so far.
I know of no scientist who says it possible for there to have been truly Zero, no space , no energy, literally a “state” (we can’t even call it that) of Nothing and from that Anything. To me it’s an absurdity which leaves only one other option and that is that something (even empty space is something) has always existed. This is inconceivable and awesome.
I believe in an infinite upholder the First Source and Center, the Universal Father of all creation who is equally inconceivable and awesome. The idea that a God exists baffles me astounds me, how could a Person always exist? Ok but apparently reality is eternal with or without God and so either way it’s mind blowing.
As far as I’m concerned if anyone says it’s possible for a Zero “State” with literally Nothing to have existed they are being intellectually dishonest even if its phrased as “well we just don’t know…” , or “where’s your evidence there was never once Nothing?”
Worse still, mythology fanboys present speculations arising from the unsupported assertions of their mythologies, as if said speculations constituted fact. We have plenty of observational data to this effect.
So what? From that all you may claim is ignorance. Nothing else is inferred. The argument you are using is a common logical fallacy, called argument from ignorance.
And again. That you find a thing absurd is another argument from ignorance and irrelevant.
How nice for you. This time a different common fallacy, First Cause. Used by Aristotle, then Thomas Aquinas and latterly by Intellectual giants such as Ray Comfort . For this atheist there is only one appropriate answer to this claim and the two above: Kindly show me your evidence or stop wasting my time.
Pretty ironic in view of your post.
I may be wrong, but I think making a claim and saying a thing is possible are two different things.
(see Russell’s Teapot. Look it up)
The only argument I’m making is that reality (that something always was ) is eternal. There is only one other position: there was no space no energy no matter literally Zero Nothing, A stateless state, and then something. The latter is impossible.
All we can do is speculate about the origins of the universe at this point. A Zero Stateless non reality (even describing it is ridiculous) is impossible to conceive of and or even describe as soon as you use a word it becomes Something instead of Nothing.
I’m starting think I sound like a parrot, but…as I understand it, all physical laws, as defined by the scientific method only apply after Planck Time (5.4 x 10-44 seconds) and everything before that instant including the initial expansion point of the big bang, can only ever be speculation, and hopefully, harmless speculation, which includes guesses about eternity.
I believe that the universe began when the Great White Eternal Celestial Cockatoo, having laid the intra-dimensional Cosmic Egg, hatched it, giving birth to Itself, which, after Planck Time, allowed Itself to form into a boundless enigmatic and expanding reality comprising elemental atomic and sub-atomic particles.
Prove me wrong.
I believe in the Great White Eternal Celestial Cockatoo and that He really is a Pretty Boy Then. Squawk!
False Dichotomy. You have no idea what is possible. You have no example anywhere of ‘nothing.’ If you had an example of it, it would be something. Your argument is fallacious from the bottom to the top. You are talking complete and utter nonsense. The simple truth of the matter is that… Not only do you not know, but you can not imagine either.
The light switch is either turned on or off. Their either home or their not. Either there was or there was not. Sometimes there are only two choices, there being two choices doesn’t make it a false dichotomy. I expected this comment
You don’t get to postulate the possibility of that which has not been demonstrated to be possible. Are you nuts? Think about the position you are asserting. A sun made completely out of chocolate with marshmallow planets actually exists someplace in the universe. And on that planet are people just like us.
The scientific method isn’t the only way to discover what is true, Philosophical arguments can also lead to truth.
If you are suggesting that Non Reality can produce reality then you are intellectually dishonest.
Are you suggesting a Stateless Non Reality Non Existence and then from "that " (we can’t even use the word ‘that’ to describe it because then it becomes something again) is even on the table as a possibility?
“You don’t know…You can’t prove it…wheres your evidence?” Wrong. We do know something has always existed. It is the only possibility we are left with.