How Can Something Come From Nothing?
The “how can something come from nothing?” argument is often posed by theists to challenge atheistic or naturalistic views. Atheist responses typically address the assumptions underlying the question or explore alternative explanations rooted in science, philosophy, or logic. Here are some of the most compelling rebuttals:
1. Questioning the Assumptions:
- Who says there was “nothing”?
The argument assumes there was ever a state of “absolute nothingness.” Many atheists argue that this assumption is unwarranted, as we don’t have evidence or even a coherent definition of what “nothing” truly entails in a physical or metaphysical sense. - Quantum Mechanics and ‘Nothing’:
In quantum physics, “nothing” as we commonly understand it doesn’t exist. The quantum vacuum, often described as empty space, still has fluctuations and virtual particles appearing and disappearing spontaneously. This shows that what we might think of as “something from nothing” is actually a natural process.
2. Shifting the Burden of Proof:
- Why does God solve the problem?
If the theist claims that a deity is necessary to explain existence, they must explain how this deity came into existence. Saying “God just is” or “God is uncaused” avoids the question rather than answering it. Why not simply say the universe or the laws of physics “just are” instead? - Infinite Regress and Special Pleading:
The theist often stops the regress at God, assuming God requires no cause, but this is special pleading. If God doesn’t need a cause, why does the universe?
3. The Universe as Self-Existent:
- The Universe Might Be Eternal:
Modern cosmology allows for models where the universe or its precursors (e.g., a multiverse) have always existed in some form, avoiding the need for a “beginning.” - Time Began with the Universe:
The “Big Bang” represents the beginning of time as we know it. If time itself began, asking “what came before?” might be meaningless—just as asking “what’s north of the North Pole?” is nonsensical.
4. Philosophical Challenges:
- “Nothing” Might Be Impossible:
Philosophically, “nothing” might be unstable or incoherent. The laws of physics may inherently produce “something,” meaning “nothing” could never exist. - Existence Is the Default State:
Why assume non-existence is the default and existence needs explanation? Some argue that the mere fact we observe existence suggests it’s fundamental.
5. Explaining the Question as a Gap in Knowledge:
- Admitting Ignorance Isn’t a Weakness:
It’s valid to say, “We don’t fully know how the universe came into being yet, but that doesn’t mean we insert a god as the explanation.” The history of science shows that natural explanations often replace supernatural ones over time. - Science Continues to Explore:
Fields like cosmology and quantum physics are investigating these deep questions, and even if they never find a complete answer, invoking “God” adds no explanatory power—it merely moves the question.
6. Pointing Out Theistic Contradictions:
- God “Created from Nothing” Is No Better:
If the theist claims God created the universe “from nothing,” they face the same problem they attribute to atheists: How did God interact with “nothing” to produce “something”? This doesn’t solve the dilemma but shifts it. - If God Is Complex, What Explains Him?
If complexity (the universe) needs a cause, then a vastly more complex entity (God) would also require an explanation.
Summary Response:
The argument assumes more than it proves:
- It assumes “nothing” is a coherent or actual state.
- It presupposes the universe had to “come from” somewhere.
- It offers God as an explanation but doesn’t solve the problem of origins.
Instead, atheists often rely on scientific and philosophical principles to suggest that:
- The universe may be eternal or self-caused.
- “Nothing” might be physically impossible.
- Invoking God simply replaces one mystery with another.
Ultimately, the rebuttal centers on rejecting false dichotomies and showing that the question isn’t as straightforward as it appears.