How Is It Possible That the Universe Was Created from Nothingness?

How Is It Possible That the Universe Was Created from Nothingness?

How Is It Possible That the Universe Was Created from Nothingness?

2009 Posts

46 views

0



Brett Kunkle answers the question, “How is it possible that the universe was created from nothingness?”

#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity

——————————– CONNECT ——————————–

Website: https://www.str.org/​​​​​​
STR University: https://training.str.org/​​​​​
STR App: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets​​​​​​
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/

Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.

———————————- GIVE ———————————-

Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://www.str.org/donate​​​​​​

source

6 thoughts on “How Is It Possible That the Universe Was Created from Nothingness?

  1. Joshua Hults

    A lot of us theist and atheist have a very voodoo way of looking at nature. I mean that when we run into a wall as a kid we say, " Ouch that wall hurt me. " We confuse the attribute hardness/solid for the wall itself. We fail to separate the two. The wall is the wall, the quality of hardness is the quality of hardness. The wall is not hard, but rather the wall processes the quality of hard. Just as a car is not move, it has the potential to move when standing at rest and the quality of moving when in movement.
    Think of a computer game consisting of a ball and a wall. The programmer writes code to allow for the ball to move about from 1 corner of screen to the other. As the ball gets to the wall it travels through the wall and continues as if nothing was there. So the programmer writes CODE ( information ) to stop the ball from traveling through the wall. Now when the ball hits the wall it is reflected and goes the other direction. The wall now possesses the quality of solid. But notice that solid is not the wall, but the computer code behind the wall. Or the information behind the wall not the wall itself.
    Back to reality. The quality of a thing is not the thing itself, but the information behind that thing. Therefore I conclude that information must 1st exist before anything else. The possibility for something to exist is itself information. This information had to 1st exist prior to anything material existing for anything material to be able to exist. I know this is super abstract at this point.

    The important thing to remember is that information is non material. Information can be expressed through material objects but not the material objects themselves. Information likewise can't be destroyed, only converted. For instance there are two types of information. Shannon information and specified complex information. The word DOG within the construct of the english language carries meaning. The reason being is due to the specified order of the letters ( D O G. ) Information is an order of parts, not the parts themselves. A word is specified when it obeys the rules of a language. So " iudrgsiurng " does not obey any pre determined rules in English. Therefore "iudrgsiurng " is shannon information in relation to english. Shannon information is any order of parts that carries no meaning or function as the result of the order of the parts. So if we had a CD with specified information, that is to say useful information, and then just deleted all the useful information, the specified information is converted to shannon information. No information is lost, just the usefulness of the information.

    So I conclude information is eternal.

    My personal view as of this moment in time is that all of this reality exist not in a virtual reality, but rather in the conscious mind of God. We are being dreamed if you will. The phrase " I think therefore I exist " restated as, " God thinks therefore I exist. "

    December 5, 2021 at 6:52 pm Reply
  2. jeffrey lee robinson

    Just an addendum, but it's also a straw man to take the weakest argument of a position from it's most ill informed members.

    In other words, if an atheist did actually argue the non-point you presented, but you present it (as you did) as the universal atheist view point, rather than the stronger view point that prevails, you have committed the straw man fallacy.

    It's a matter of best practices: take on the strongest argument and show it's weaknesses, not the weakest argument.

    But that requires you to actually educate yourself. Which, I realize, is not a Christian virtue as presumptive arrogance and trusting your elders is.

    So that choice is yours. Which path will you take? The one of comfort where you hear your own words and they sound right to you, or the one that actually will challenge and humble you?

    Christians – always amazing in breaking their own alleged principles. 

    Of course I expect no response to this, as most religious, once shown their fallacies, flaws, and foolishness, cower away to their little comfort box. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong.

    Perhaps not. 

    December 5, 2021 at 6:52 pm Reply
  3. jeffrey lee robinson

    Wow, dude, 12th century physics much?

    What's amazing about your reference to the straw man fallacy is … that you just committed it. It's easy to tell you were personally trained by Mr. Koukl, aka Logical Fallacy Superhero. 

    First, any atheist with any scientific education is not arguing against what you just stated – so there is your straw man fallacy right off the bat. But congrats on learning a new logical term! Now use it correctly please and actually educate yourself on the conversations out there. I'm guessing you went to the school of Koukl's "ethics" school that argues atheists argue for relative ethics, which few actually do. 

    As stated below by another, "we don't know," is a perfectly valid response; for the Christian "I don't know," means "must be God!" which is absurd.

    Your argument also entails that something had to "just be," namely, god. So then your entire "something can't come from nothing," stance falls apart since we can assume god is "something."

    So now you are 2 for 2 in Fallacy Land as you just committed Special Pleading. You're learning a lot today!

    And than you say all this with arrogance unparalleled, as is typical of the ignorant Christian apologist. Which, I hold, is not just distasteful and makes you look the fool, but unethical. Irony!

    Lastly, as also stated below, your idea of "nothing," doesn't make it so. It could be that nature is always something, and nothing is a delusion of perception. As Lawrence Krauss posits, "nothing is unstable." Which means it's not your grandma's nothing.

    We would appreciate you actually respond to the criticisms given of the grave errors you make as you pretend to lecture on logic. In other words, humble yourself, Christian. You are making gross logical errors as you pretend to give unassailable arguments. It's egregious and shows you as less than genuine. 

    It also might be helpful to actually educate yourself on the conversation at hand instead of assuming you know the terrain; that little integrity thing, so annoying, I know. Here's a start – Lawrence Krauss's lecture on a Universe from Nothing.

    No doubt you won't agree with it, but given your assumptions, you ought to be compelled to respond to it – that is, if you really care about truth and logic; a doubtful thing from the Koukl Cult. Nonetheless, you make yourself the fool with such an uninformed and ignorant "teaching" video. 

    Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing

    December 5, 2021 at 6:52 pm Reply
  4. jeffrey lee robinson

    You know what's really interesting about Christian "outreach?"

    On any given atheist channel you will see (a) the author always making the videos at his own expense and (b) actually engaging his audience.

    On [almost] any given "official" ministry channel, like STR – by official I mean one that collects donations and is a non profit – you rarely get interaction from the actual authors.

    Which is very odd, since I thought Jesus was all about engaging their audience? I guess ministries like this are too busy selling their books full of ad hominem attacks, bad history and even worse logic to actually be like Christ. 

    Or maybe they're just happy with the blind adoration of their sheep. Who knows?

    But it seems they miss out on the inherent contradiction. But that's the false humility and hubris of Greg Koukl for ya. 

    December 5, 2021 at 6:52 pm Reply
  5. Dark Day Ministries

    Their alternative is the continuous attempts to revive a physically impossible interpretation of the oscillating universe theory with the hope that everyone will start believing that the universe is eternal and then never have to deal with the logical consequences of a space/time beginning.

    December 5, 2021 at 6:52 pm Reply
  6. dave4shmups

    Atheists do argue that the universe is eternal, but there is NO scientific evidence to support that view.  So all most of them do is point to the multiverse theory, which is not empirically verifiable.  And if there are, or were, multiple universes, that does not exclude the existence of the God of the Bible.

    December 5, 2021 at 6:52 pm Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.