Nothing is the thing that stones think of

Nothing is the thing that stones think of

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2817-nothing-is-the-thing-that-stones-think-of



Wiki:
"Nothingness" is a philosophical term that denotes the general state of nonexistence 

Nothing comes from nothing (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides. It is associated with ancient Greek cosmology, such as is presented not just in the works of Homer and Hesiod, but also in virtually every internal system—there is no break in-between a world that did not exist and one that did since it could not be created ex nihilo in the first place.

Nothing can be made from nothing—once we see that's so, Already we are on the way to what we want to know.
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 1.148–156

Argument: The argument that something cannot come into existence from absolutely no thing. is an assertion, you need to demonstrate this, I don't know for a fact that something cannot come from nothing. You assert without demonstrating that something cannot come from nothing, how do you know this? How can we test this?
Response:  Absolutely nothing, as the absence of anything, can't do something. It has no potentialities, it is the contrary of being: Non-being. 0 x 0 = 0.  That is inductive reasoning which does not require empirical demonstration and testing. Nothing has no ontological value to be taken seriously as a possible explanation of anything, since, its the absence of any being, it cannot produce being. This is obviously true, self evident,  and can be taken for granted without the need to be demonstrated. 

It's easy to demonstrate that everything comes from something (and it does!). I can demonstrate you that nothing can't produce anything simply by giving you an empty box and telling you to wait 50 years to see if anything is born out of nothing; there's your demonstration for you!

If there is is no logical contradiction contained within the concept of 'nothing' then it could, in principles, and in fact, exist. The state of non-being could be. But then , we would not be here to talk about non-being. And since we ARE here, non-being has never been, but being has always been. In time, and in eternity. An eternal being without beginning, and without end, exists. Fits perfectly with the one that named himself " I AM".  I don't know of any other deity calling himself " I AM".  That should be telling.

Nothingness is inert – powerless to change without external intervention.

The Law of Cause and Effect is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Every material effect must have an adequate cause.

Per definition: 
Being - can do something
Non-being - can't do something

Being can create being
Non-being can't create being

Something can do something
Nothing can't do something

Causes can cause things
No causes can't cause things

Something can exist somewhere
Nothing can't exist somewhere

Something can be sometimes
Absolutely nothing can't be sometimes

Existence can create existence
Non-existence can't create existence

Consciousness can create consciousness
Non-consciousness can't create consciousness

If there was nothing, there would still be nothing. 
Since there IS something, there must always have been something. 

Something cannot come out of nothing. 
Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle. With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss. 1

So, what is nothingness anyway?
If nothingness exists, only then is existence truly absurd. It is definable only by comparison: nothing is the opposite of anything. No matter, no dimensions, no space, no thought, no scale, no direction, no speed, no time and, most important: nothing to be defined exists in nothingness. If, say, before the Big Bang there was nothing, it can only mean that nothingness has a property which makes is create a Big Bang but that is contradictory because there is no something in nothing to create anything from. We need to be clear on nothing. Nothing is no thing. Nothing is not emptiness, because emptiness contains the borders of itself. To define something as empty you need to explicitly define a cavity. Nothing is not absence, because absence is limited by its object, while nothingness is unlimited. In absence only the named absent is not. In nothingness nothing is. Nothingness is not void because void contains space. Nothing contains nothing, not even empty space. Empty space, aside from the fact it isn’t really empty, is still something, space, so at least one degree removed from nothing. Nothingness is dimensionless too simply because there is no space. No space, no dimensions. Death is not nothingness either. Death is non-existence, for both us and all other living things all over this universe. Unless we’re alone, in the entire infinite universe, which raises a lot of hope. But hope always bears disillusionment, so let’s not hope 2 Infinity is far more plausible than nothingness So, now the big question, if there has always been something from which everything happened, what is it?

“What is the sense of ‘possibility’  if the universe began to exist, and must have had a cause?”  
The answer is “metaphysical possibility.”  This is a modality in between physical possibility and strict logical possibility and is often called “broad logical possibility” by contemporary philosophers.  To illustrate, it is strictly logically possible that “The Prime Minister is a prime number” (there is no logical contradiction here); but, notwithstanding, such a thing is metaphysically impossible (incapable of actualization).  There are all sorts of truths—like “Everything that has a shape has a size,” “Nothing can be red all over and green all over,” “No event precedes itself,” etc.—which are not strictly logically necessary but are, I think, metaphysically necessary.  I think that the first premiss of the kalam argument is a metaphysically necessary truth. 3

RICHARD CARRIER
P1: In the beginning, there was absolutely nothing.
–
P2: If there was absolutely nothing, then (apart from logical necessity) nothing existed to prevent anything from happening or to make any one thing happening more likely than any other thing.
The { xxxxxxx } says in his heart: Nothing has causal powers
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/468?fbclid=IwAR2bL60wa6RtLEuds6mRnYP5Y4iClVcDKY0bLz4qNWTMDTBNBOTIpNIryBY

Ethan Siegel The Four Different Meanings Of 'Nothing' To A Scientist May 1, 2020
This is what physicists mean when they talk about nothing: 
Nothingness is the void of empty space. Perhaps you prefer a definition of nothing that contains literally "no things" in it at all. If you follow that line of thinking, then the first definition is inadequate: it clearly contains "something." In order to achieve nothingness, you'll have to get rid of every fundamental constituent of matter. Every quantum of radiation has to go. Every particle and antiparticle, from the ghostly neutrino to whatever dark matter is, must be removed. If you could somehow remove them all — each and every one — you could ensure that the only thing that was left behind was empty space itself. With no particles or antiparticles, no matter or radiation, no identifiable quanta of any type in your Universe, all you'd have left is the void of empty space itself. To some, that's the true scientific definition of "nothingness."

But certain physical entities still remain, even under that highly restrictive and imaginative scenario. The laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it's still at its current, positive, non-zero value. Today, this manifests itself as dark energy; before the Big Bang, this manifested in the form of cosmic inflation, whose end gave rise to the entire Universe. This is where the phrase, "a Universe from nothing" comes from. Even without matter or radiation of any type, this form of "nothing" still leads to a fascinating Universe.

Nothingness as the ideal lowest-energy state possible for spacetime. Right now, our Universe has a zero-point energy, or an energy inherent to space itself, that's at a positive, non-zero value. We do not know whether this is the true "ground state" of the Universe, i.e., the lowest energy state possible, or whether we can still go lower. It's still possible that we're in a false vacuum state, and that the true vacuum, or the true lowest-energy state, will either be closer to zero or may actually go all the way to zero (or below). To transition there from our current state would likely lead to a catastrophe that forever altered the Universe: a nightmare scenario known as vacuum decay. This would result in many unsavory things for our existence. The photon would become a massive particle, the electromagnetic force would only travel short ranges, and practically all the sunlight our star emits would fail to make its way to Earth. But in terms of imagining this as a state of true nothingness, it's perhaps the ideal scenario that still keeps the laws of physics intact. (Although some of the rules would be different.) If you were able to reach the true ground state of the Universe — whatever that state may look like — and expelled from your Universe all the matter, energy, radiation, spacetime curvature and ripples, etc., you'd be left with the ultimate idea of "physical nothingness." You'd at least still have a stage for the Universe to play out on, but there would be no players. There would be no cast, no script, and no scene to your play, but the vast abyss of physical nothingness still provides you with a stage. The cosmic vacuum would be at its absolute minimum, and there would be no way to extract work, energy, or any real particles (or antiparticles) from it. And yet, to some, this still has the flavor of "something," because space, time, and rules are still in place.

Lets contrast it now with absolutely nothing, or the philosophical nothingness: 
True Nothingness only occurs when you remove the entire Universe and the laws that govern it. This is the most extreme case of all: a case that steps out of reality — out of space, time, and physics itself — to imagine a Platonic ideal of nothingness. We can conceive of removing everything we can imagine: space, time, and the governing rules of reality. Physicists have no definition for anything here; this is pure philosophical nothingness.
In the context of physics, this creates a problem: we cannot make any sense of this sort of nothingness. We'd be compelled to assume that there is such a thing as a state that can exist outside of space and time, and that spacetime itself, as well as the rules that govern all of the physical entities we know of, can then emerge from this hypothesized, idealized state.

The question is, of course: If the nothing that physicists like Krauss talk about, entails the existence of the laws of physics, the quantum fields, the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces,  spacetime, governed by General Relativity, the fundamental constants,  the zero-point energy of space, and still at its current, positive, non-zero value, which manifests itself as dark energy, then the question is: Where did ALL THIS come from ?? Its not, as many think, just virtual particles popping in and out from a quantum vacuum. Its much more. As seen thats still a lot of something, and not nothing at all. The origin of all these things still demand an explanation. 

Claim: Stephan Hawkings : We do not need to invoke God to explain creation of universe. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can create itself out of nothing. (The Grand Design,Page no. 180)
Reply: John Lennox: If I first put £1,000 into the bank and then later another £1,000, the laws of arithmetic will rationally explain how it is that I now have £2,000 in the bank. But if I never put any money into the bank myself and simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being in my bank account. Then,would my account be full of money?

Being cannot come from non-being. This claim is backed up mathematically.  0 x 0 is always 0. This is mathematical proof.   The dichotomy that either there is being that can do things, or there is non-being, that can't do things, are jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

Claim: 0 x 0 = 0 only explains information pertinent to the concepts of "zero", "times", and "equal.". It has nothing whatsoever to say about whether it is possible, in the physical universe rather than the abstract realm of mathematics, something can come from nothing.
Reply: We have no practical example, and NEVER observed something to come from absolutely nothing.

Existence cannot come from non-existence. Reality cannot come from Non-reality. Something cannot come from Nothing. The law of cause and effect is the most universal law of all laws known. That is something that can be inferred by the explicit nature of non-being. It is the absence of anything. Therefore, the claim: Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing, stands on its own, and does not require any further proof or demonstration. 

Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.

ex nihilo nihil fit


1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4dSaS084s
2. https://medium.com/@andraganescu/you-cant-make-something-out-of-nothing-c9b95a1beb66
3. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

Here, Krauss goes to the point to claim that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could have created the universe. Thats the suicide of reason and logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghLSHorrcoQ

The net energy of the universe is zero
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2011-the-net-energy-of-the-universe-is-zero

Matt asks to prove that nothing has no causal powers, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFK-jMJPlP4&t=36s

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo

We propose the ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN) theory, aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The suggested framework does not require amendments to the laws of physics: but rather provides a new scenario to the Universe initiation process, and from that point merges with state-of-the-art cosmological models. The paper is aimed at providing a first step towards a more complete model of the Universe creation – proving that creation Ex Nihilo is feasible. We adopt the vision of a “flash of Universe appearing from nothing”. Assuming that the starting phase of the Universe adheres with the “principle of ignorance,” and that “singularity is the ultimate unknowable, and therefore should be totally devoid of information”. , ‘Creatio Ex Nihilo’ (CEN), aimed at describing the origin of the Universe from ‘nothing’ in information terms. The notion of bit-based information at the core of the Universe evolvement is not new. This trend suggests that the physical world is “made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals”  information is the building block from which everything is constructed and that all natural phenomena can be explained in information terms. 

According to the newly suggested theory, CEN, in the beginning, there was nothing – no material, no energy, no space and no time. This situation was fully symmetric with no entropy. Therefore, this initial state was allegedly static, with no motive for change.

1. http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X

Here, Krauss goes to the point to claim that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could have created the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghLSHorrcoQ

How the Universe came from "Nothing", Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXGyesfHzew&t=1006s

And Dawkins, as his great friend,  swallows it as Sacro-Santo. Without making any objections. It would be funny, if not sad.

I mean, hey, that's irrational and absurd by all means.

Being can do something. Non-being cannot do something.
Something can do something. Nothing cannot do something.

Should be clear to anyone. But apparently, it isn't. Atheists ask me frequently to demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing.

Some foolish atheologists claim that we can know that inside the universe something cannot come from nothing, but outside the universe, we do not know the conditions.

Hey, it doesn't matter were, Nothing, and making it even more clear by defining it as ABSOLUTELY nothing, is the absence of being. ANYWHERE.

But even after many years, even today, atheists use Krauss arguments to defend the claim that the universe does not need a creator.

This video ridicules Krauss claims since it is deserved to be exposed, and since so many people actually parrot this nonsense, it has to be duly addressed.

Atheists claim to be on the rational high-ground, but this demonstrates that the contrary is the case.

Claim: The only thing worthy of ridicule is the strawman as the nothing Krauss talks about is not the same thing as nothing in a literal sense.
Reply: Krauss talks about an ABSOLUTE nothing, no space, no particles, no physical laws. The only meaning that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has is Nothing whatsoever. It is the opposite of Something, the opposite of being, the opposite of existence.  Nothing, Non-being, Non-existence. Krauss claims special pleading, by the attempt of giving an interpretation of nothing which actually becomes something. A quantum vacuum giving rise to quantum fluctuations is not nothing.   The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from? We are simply pushing  the issue of creation further back. Now it has to be explained how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into existence.

Why We Had to Change the Meaning of Nothing
http://nautil.us/blog/why-we-had-to-change-the-meaning-of-nothing?fbclid=IwAR20gYGHAmyiyCS5dkyDoi4Re3cj09nyAMK7V-LJA0UOk1K0xlGsbwvd_Vg

http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/ingenious-lawrence-m-krauss

Krauss: Nothing was never well defined anyway
Reply: There has never been doubt about the ontological meaning of nothing. It is the absence and contrary of something, being, existence

Krauss: The definition of the Bible is what we call empty space now. An eternal empty void.  
Reply: Nowhere does the Bible define nothing as empty space, or eternal empty void.

Krauss: I talk about the universe from nothing, I’m talking about a universe in which not only no particles, no radiation existed, but no space and no time existed in what is now our universe; all of that came into existence. 
Reply: What was the cause ?

Krauss: Now you can say well, did anything else exist? And I say well, that’s largely a semantic and maybe [a] useless question because it could be that there’s, it’s like, turtles all the way down
Reply: Thats actually the most relevant question. It could not be an infinite regress, otherwise, we would never reach this present moment in time. Why did Krauss not consider an eternal creator ?

Krauss: that there was other, that our universe arose out of a multiverse;
Reply:The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Krauss: or it could be that there was absolutely nothing—there was no space, no time, and space and time popped into existence.
Reply: That is the epitome of irrational nonsense. Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and can't do something. When the truth is dismissed, it is replaced with every kind of foolish claims.

What is so simple that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the human mind to contemplate or reflect on *absolutely nothing*. IMPOSSIBLE. You can only say what it IS NOT. So as soon as you say ANYTHING about it, (it is unstable....it has properties...) you are stepping out of reality that the human mind is LOCKED into. To say anything positive about it is self refuting. This all equates that Krauss and all his fans are by default *absolutely detached* from reality. Only a real strong believer in evolution could be so insane.

In the Beginning…God, or “Nothing?”

Often today we see articles and programs where groups of scientists are trying to explain the beginning of the universe, “how we got here”.  And so many times they strain and struggle to explain this beginning without a beginner, namely, God.   So how does the Bible account stack up to modern science?
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Until the twentieth century it was believed that the universe had always existed, and there was not much known about what it consisted of. In the last century we determined that the universe consists of space, time and matter as a “continuum.” What was even more startling and disturbing to some was that scientists such as Einstein and later Stephen Hawking and others found evidence that the universe had not always existed but came into existence at a finite point in time in the past. They also found evidence that matter, space and time all began simultaneously, called “space-time.” They concluded that prior to this beginning space and time did not exist.
Look at Genesis 1:1 again. “In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).” The Bible is the only religious or ‘holy” book that says matter, time and space all began simultaneously at a finite time in the past. All other ancient cosmologies start with eternal matter or chaos. It appears that the Bible shows remarkable scientific insight on the beginning of the universe. Some scientists have taken note of this. Robert Jastrow, a NASA astronomer, commented: “Most remarkable of all, astronomers have found proof that the universe sprang into existence abruptly, in a sudden moment of creation, as the Bible said it did” (emphasis theirs).[1]
There is also a relevant verse in the New Testament, Titus 1:2: “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.” The word for “world” is the Greek word aionios, which is where we get the word “eons.” The idea is that of a space/time continuum. Again time is portrayed as having a beginning, with something/someone transcendent to it.
How do we explain how the ancient authors of the Bible knew that time had a beginning, simultaneous with matter and space, when the science of that time thought matter was eternal and so was time?
The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics confirm creation:
The very well established First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics actually demand that there be a transcendent creator of the universe.  What do the first and second laws of thermodynamics say about matter and energy?
The first law of thermodynamics, simply put, states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed one into the other. No new matter appears without a corresponding decrease in energy, or vice-versa. The second law states that things break down and wear out over time, as the matter and energy in the universe go from order to disorder. The energy available to perform work decreases over time, which is called the law of entropy. The result of the second law is what is called the “heat death” of the universe, when all energy is evenly spread out and no more is available to perform work.  So we see that if the universe past eternal, this heat death would have already occurred.  So this demands that the universe came into existence at a finite time in the past.  But the First Law says that matter and energy doesn’t create itself or spring into existence by itself, so a transcendent creator at this past creation point is needed also.’s
The impossibility of a universe that is past eternal:
All cosmological models have to deal with the problem that time cannot stretch infinitely back into the past.  Even the so-called multiverse models, where there are supposedly many universes popping in and out of existence, with ours just happening to be the ‘lucky”one that has the right parameters for life, have this problem of not being past eternal.  Why?
First, you cannot have an infinite series of past events.  We can speak of a potential infinity, such as the future, but an actual infinity leads to some absurd results, as illustrated in “Hilbert’s Hotel”. {2}  In this hypothetical illustration, you can add and subtract like quantities, but get different results. For example, Hilbert’s Hotel has an infinite number of rooms and they are all filled.  But if a guest wants to come and check in, there is no problem, because all the guests can just move up one room number, 1 to 2 , 10 to 11, etc. and the visitor is accommodated.  So infinity plus one equals infinity.  But let’s say an infinite number of guests want to check in.  No problem! Just have all the guests in even number rooms move to the next up odd number, 6 to 7, for ex., and you have room for all the incoming guests.  So infinity plus infinity equals infinity.  Now all the guests in the even number rooms check out.  So now you have an infinite number of empty rooms.  No problem, just move all the guests in odd number rooms back into the even number rooms they were in originally. So infinity minus infinity equals infinity.  Finally, lets say all the guests from room number 4 on up check out.  Now you have infinity minus infinity equals 3.  You can see the absurdity that having an infinite number of things, or past time events, leads to.
You also cannot pass through an infinite series of past events. So even if you could have an infinite number of past events actually exist, you could not actually form this number of events by adding them one after another.  So you cannot pass through an  infinite number of moments to reach the present day.  Otherwise, having begun an infinite amount of time ago, you would have finished already.  Other absurdities also result. {3}  Note that this does not cause a problem for God to have existed from eternity past, since He would be timeless and transcendent to the time which He created, and He also enters into time when the universe is created.  A good book explaining this idea is William Craig’s book Time and Eternity, exploring God’s relationship to time, Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2001.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are in the Bible:
So are the First law and Second law of thermodynamics in the Bible? Yes!
The First law: Genesis 2:2 says, “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” The word “rested” simply means “ceased,” and it implies that the work of creation was finished from that time on and no new space, time or matter is now being created. This is exactly what we observe in the first law of thermodynamics―no matter or energy can be created. Hebrews 1:3 says that God is “upholding all things by the word of his power.” Nothing can be annihilated.
The Second law: The second law of thermodynamics is also in the Bible. For example, the Bible says this about the universal property of decay in the universe: “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished” (Isaiah 51:6). The heavens and the earth are “waxing old,” according to the second thermodynamic law. Another passage that speaks of universal decay is Romans 8:21-22: “Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”
Now when the Bible was written, what did most cultures believe about the earth and the universe? How does the Bible teach differently?
It was unlikely that the ancients believed the earth and the universe, especially the stars, were not eternal. Yet Matthew 24:35 says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” When the Bible was written no evidence had been discovered that the universe was decaying. In that day they believed just the opposite.  The idea that the universe was created from nothing was not in the thinking of the ancients. They always started with pre-existing materials.  And they ridiculed the idea that the universe was finite and had a beginning. But some modern scientists have noticed how recent discoveries confirm the biblical perspective.
 
It’s a lot easier for us today to think of a finite universe with a beginning, since the big bang theory is currently the most widely accepted theory. But the big bang without a creator has some major difficulties. Without a creator the big bang theory is essentially: “Nothing went ‘bang!’ and out came the universe.” The atheist, like the theist, believes that matter and energy came into existence without pre-existing materials and then was ordered against the known second law of thermodynamics which says things naturally go from order to disorder. So either way this event was outside known natural laws and therefore was a supernatural event. The main difference is that the atheist has to believe in a supernatural event without a supernatural cause adequate to explain it. Smith and Eastman comment on this: “The atheist’s model begins with an even more impressive miracle―the appearance of all the matter in the universe from nothing, by no one, and for no reason.” (emphasis mine)[4]
Astronomer David Darling says, “Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either―despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say. . .‘there was a quantum fluctuation from which….’  Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, and then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. They are away, and before you know it they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.
“You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining”[5] (emphasis mine)

“The atheist’s model begins with an even more impressive miracle―the appearance of all the matter in the universe from nothing, by no one, and for no reason.” Chuck Missler and Dr. Mark Eastman, The Creator Beyond Time and Space, p. 17.

[size]
Our everyday experience confirms that something does not come from nothing!  Also, if this could happen, why don’t we see much less complex things than the universe regularly pop into existence from nothing, since this would be much more probable than an entire universe doing this?
If  we say that the universe cannot not exist, in other words, that the universe exists necessarily, we have other problems.  For the universe itself is ultimately composed of elementary particles or packets of energy.  And it is always possible that a different set of elementary particles could have existed.  So the universe is contingent on a cause, which means that it could have not existed at one time.  However, God is not composed of elementary particles, but He is pure mind and Spirit, a very simple entity who must be transcendent to time, in order to cause time to exist. Only a mind could cause things and yet be timeless, spaceless, and non-material.
In fact, the cause of the universe must be not only transcendent to space, time, and matter, He must be personal.  How else do we explain a finite, temporal effect such as the universe with a timeless cause?   This was an argument first put forth by Muslim theologian Al-Ghazali in the 11th century.   If the universe was caused by a pre-existing condition, then if that pre-existing causal condition was eternally present, so would be its effect, the universe.  The universe could not just come into existence at a finite time in the past.  But a mind and a will could initiate those conditions at a point in time in the past.  This is because the act of such a will is a free act independent of pre-existing conditions.
The Bible talks about the “stretching out”  of the heavens:
There’s another fascinating insight in the Bible about the creation of the universe. One main feature of current cosmologies is that when the universe was formed space itself was stretched out like a material being stretched, rather than matter exploding into empty space that was already there. Space itself, according to current theory, was stretched out from a point of beginning. In the Bible we see an amazing correlation with this idea in over a dozen verses where it says the Lord “stretched out the heavens.” Isaiah 42:5 : “Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out.” Psalm 104:2 says, “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment; who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” 
Several other verses throughout the Bible have this same phrasing. The idea that space was stretched during its creation is a modern scientific idea. Is it something ancient writers would have been able to deduce on their own? We can allow just so many lucky guesses!
So, as always, the Bible was way ahead of its time by simply telling us, “In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”



{1} As quoted in The Creator Beyond Time and Space, Chuck Missler and Dr. Mark Eastman, The Word for Today, Costa Mesa, CA, 1996, 7.
{2] William Craig, Reasonable Faith, Third ed., Crossway,  Wheaton, IL, 2008, pp. 118-120.
{3} Ibid., pp. 120-124.
[4}Chuck Missler and Dr. Mark Eastman, The Creator Beyond Time and Space, The Word for Today, Costa Mesa, CA, 1996, 17.
[5] “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151, September 14, 1996.[/size]

The ancient Greeks debated the origin of time fiercely. Aristotle, taking the no-beginning side, invoked the principle that out of nothing, nothing comes. If the universe could never have gone from nothingness to somethingness, it must always have existed. For this and other reasons, time must stretch eternally into the past and future. Christian theologians tended to take the opposite point of view. Augustine contended that God exists outside of space and time, able to bring these constructs into existence as surely as he could forge other aspects of our world. When asked, What was God doing before he created the world? Augustine answered, Time itself being part of God's creation, there was simply no before!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

From Nothing, Nothing Comes: A Poem

Atheists claim, "Prove to us,
That something can't come from nothing!"
But the comparison's absurd,
Like claiming the moon's made of green cheese, that's bluffing.

For nothing is the absence of all,
No thing can ever come to be,
It has no potential, no power,
It's non-being, plain to see.

0 x 0 equals 0, we know,
Inductive reasoning, simple and sound,
Nothing has no ontological value,
It can't produce being, that's profound.

It's self-evident, clear as day,
No need for proof or demonstration,
For nothingness can't do a thing,
It lacks all causal relation.

If nothing could exist, in theory,
Then we wouldn't be here to speak,
For we are here, we exist, we know,
Non-being is but a concept, weak.

Being has always been, eternal,
Without beginning, without end,
Fits perfectly with the "I AM,"
No other deity can contend.

The law of cause and effect, so true,
Every effect has a cause, it's plain,
Being creates being, something can do,
Non-being, void of power, is inane.

Something can exist, be conscious,
Create, and cause, it's clear to see,
But nothingness can't do a thing,
It's empty, void, a fallacy.

If there was nothing, there'd still be nothing,
Since something exists, it must always be,
Something can't come from nothing, it's true,
Obvious, self-evident, for you and me.

So let us embrace the truth of being,
And discard the notion of nothingness,
For from something, everything comes,
A principle that's hard to contest.

From nothing, nothing comes, it's clear,
A self-evident truth we can't deny,
The existence of being, eternal and grand,
A reality we can't defy.

"Nothing's Something, and Something's Nothing: A Whimsical Expedition into the Abyss of Non-Existence"

Abstract: In this paper, we embark on a delightful journey into the enigmatic realm of nothingness, where we discover that nothing is not just the absence of something but a captivating topic of philosophical contemplation. With a sprinkle of satire and a dash of cheeky humor, we delve into the paradoxes of non-existence, the cosmic conundrums of "nothing," and the confounding question of whether something can ever emerge from the void. We examine ancient wisdom, mathematical musings, and even engage in a whimsical debate between Mr. Nothing and the Laws of Arithmetic. Through the lens of wit and satire, we explore the charming absurdity of trying to explain creation without invoking anything at all. Buckle up for a rollercoaster ride of skepticism, scientific twists, and philosophical turns, as we ponder the paradoxes of "nothing" and unveil the humorous side of cosmic contemplation.

Introduction: Nothing, the Great Absentee

Ah, nothing! The elusive concept that has befuddled philosophers and scientists alike. But fear not, fellow thinkers, for we're about to embark on a whimsical expedition into the heart of non-existence. With a twist of humor and a dash of satire, we'll explore the nature of "nothing" and its audacious claim that it can, in fact, be something.

The Quandary of Zero and Zilch

Before we dive into the cosmic abyss, let's tackle the mathematical quandary of zero. Can zero ever truly be nothing? With a wink and a nod to Lucretius, we'll ponder the cosmic equation 0 x 0 = 0 and unveil its true implications: nothingness multiplied by itself yields... you guessed it, nothingness! But beware, dear reader, for this equation doesn't just apply to numbers; it's a profound insight into the nature of existence itself. Our exploration begins with the Laws of Arithmetic engaging in a satirical tête-à-tête with Mr. Nothing.

The Cosmic Comedy of "A Universe from Nothing"

Physicists, being the adventurers they are, have proposed the idea of a "universe from nothing." But wait, what's this? The "nothing" they're talking about isn't quite the vacuum we had in mind. We'll take a comedic detour through the complexities of quantum fields, zero-point energy, and the laws of physics, only to find that this scientific "nothing" isn't quite devoid of "something." Through satirical lenses, we'll chuckle at the notion that even a universe birthed from "nothing" still has a stage, just no cast or script.

The Grand "Non-Explanation" of Creation

Ah, Stephen Hawking, the master of cosmic musings, claims that the universe can create itself from nothing through the magic of gravity. But let's put on our satirical thinking caps: if I never deposited money into the bank but expected my account to be full, would that work? We'll giggle our way through this "metaphysical possibility" and ponder if it's just another case of wishing something into existence.

The Ultimate Paradox: Nothingness vs. Existence

As we reach the crescendo of our cosmic comedy, we confront the ultimate paradox: can something truly emerge from nothing? Armed with satire, we dissect the notion that existence can arise from non-existence. With a whimsical nod to Richard Carrier, we ponder what the heart of non-being truly entails, and whether it's a realm where logic and reality part ways.

Conclusion: Navigating the Cosmic Carnival

In this paper, we've embarked on a light-hearted journey through the cosmic carnival of nothingness. We've explored mathematical absurdities, tangled with quantum quirks, and chuckled at the notion of "a universe from nothing." Through satire and whimsy, we've questioned the enigmatic dance between something and nothing, leaving no paradox unprodded. And so, dear reader, as we step away from the abyss of non-existence and back into the realm of the tangible, we're left with one final chuckle and a philosophical wink. For as we've discovered, nothing's something, and something's nothing, and in the cosmic comedy of existence, it seems that even nothing can't escape the allure of being something.

Levels of Nothing” by Robert Lawrence Kuhn

https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-lawrence-kuhn/

The key argument and inference of Robert Lawrence Kuhn's article "Levels of Nothing" are:

1. The article explores the fundamental question: "Why is there Something rather than Nothing?"
2. Kuhn proposes a taxonomy of "Levels of Nothing," ranging from simplistic to absolute notions of nothingness. He outlines nine levels, each progressively removing more elements of existence.
3. The main argument is that what we typically consider as "nothing" (including the physicists' concept of nothing) is not truly "Nothing" in the absolute sense. Even the quantum vacuum that physicists discuss contains laws and potentials, which Kuhn categorizes as "Nothing Level 5" in his taxonomy.
4. Kuhn suggests that the metaphysical limit of "Real Nothing" might be at Level 7 or beyond, where not only physical things but also non-physical concrete entities (like God or consciousness) are absent.
5. The article points out the difficulty in conceiving or explaining absolute nothingness (Levels 8 and 9), as even the absence of abstract objects or possibilities might be logically impossible.
6. Kuhn infers that there are ultimately only two kinds of answers to the "Why Not Nothing?" question:
  a) There is no answer, and existence is a brute fact without explanation.
  b) There is some self-existing "thing" whose essence necessitates its existence.
7. The author concludes that the question remains profoundly puzzling, suggesting that our current understanding might be limited or that answers have been with us all along but are not yet fully comprehended.

Overall, the article emphasizes the complexity and depth of the question about existence versus nothingness, highlighting how our conventional notions of "nothing" fall short of absolute nothingness and suggesting that the true nature of existence and non-existence might be far more perplexing than we typically assume.

Commentary:  Kuhn's presentation of these two options as the only plausible answers to the question "Why is there Something rather than Nothing?" implicitly suggests a lack of satisfying explanations exempt a self-existing being.  These two options represent a kind of logical dead-end in our search for ultimate explanations. Either we accept that existence itself is inexplicable (option a), or we posit an inexplicable self-existing entity (option b). Both options ultimately rely on something that defies further explanation. This dichotomy might reflect the limits of human logic and understanding. Our minds, evolved to deal with everyday cause-effect relationships, may be ill-equipped to truly comprehend the nature of existence itself. Option b (a self-existing entity) avoids an infinite regress of causes. However, we're still left asking why this self-existing entity exists. Option a challenges many religious and philosophical systems that seek ultimate meaning or purpose. Option b aligns more with certain theological concepts but raises questions about the nature of this necessary being. In essence, Kuhn's presentation of these two options as the only plausible answers underscores the profound mystery at the heart of existence. It suggests that at the most fundamental level, we may have to accept either inexplicability or a self-justifying foundation of reality, both of which challenge our usual modes of explanation and understanding. 

Accepting a self-existing being as an axiom requires a leap of faith. This approach forms the basis of many theological and some philosophical systems. It provides a foundational answer but requires suspending the very questioning that led to it. This position can offer existential comfort and a framework for understanding reality, but it does so by essentially declaring a "stopping point" for inquiry. Confessing ignorance and embracing agnosticism is an acknowledgment of human cognitive limitations. It refuses to make claims beyond what can be known empirically. This stance keeps the question open, potentially allowing for future insights, but offers no immediate resolution.