Have you ever wondered why is there something rather than nothing? Yes, it’s an esoteric question and not one any normal person is ever likely to think about without prompting.
So consider yourself prompted because it is an important question, one of the most important of all questions in fact. How important? Well, it’s more significant even than the question of whether a problem is solved if a congressman describes a solution but nobody on C-SPAN is listening?
Or, just to put it in the most personal of terms, why are you here rather than not here?
“Or, to put it in the most personal of terms, why are you here rather than not here?”
Actually, we know why you are here – your folks and you know what. But why were they there rather than not there? Start asking those kinds of questions and eventually you come to this one: Why is there something rather than nothing?
iApologia’s Daniel Currier poses that question in a slightly different form. He frames it as the “Cosmological Big Bang,” one of the four “big bangs” that materialists/atheists must explain in order to maintain their particular faith:
- The “Cosmological Big Bang”
- The “Biological Big Bang”
- The “Psychological Big Bang”
- The “Moral Big Bang”
The question of the Cosmological Big Bang, however, is not the issue of when the universe came into being but rather why it did. As Currier puts it:
“Simply put, from our experience, nothing ever makes something. Everything that begins to exist had a prior cause. Also, the fine tuning of the universe, like carburetors, cars and chainsaws, points to a fine tuner. Finely tuned things ultimately have an intelligent cause.”
Sometimes, materialists/atheists try to resolve the issue by simply defining it as irrelevant, as with this observation by Stephen Hawking from one of his “no boundary” lectures, referenced by Currier from LiveScience:
“Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.”
But this “singularity” was a something, not a nothing. So it doesn’t answer the question of why is there something, whatever we choose to call it, rather than nothing?
And just to really give you something to think about, philosopher William Lane Craig points out that science in and of itself must be inadequate to the task of answering this question “if ‘nothing’ is understood in its standard usage because science only deals with what exists.”
“But this ‘singularity’ was a something, not a nothing. So it doesn’t answer the question of why is there something, whatever we choose to call it, rather than nothing?”
That is to say, as Craig continues, “science by its nature is an exploration of the physical natural world and its properties, and there is no such thing as a physics of non-being. Science only studies what exists, so the whole claim that science could explain how something came from nothing, when that word is used in its standard meaning, is absurd.”
Take a few minutes of quiet time to read Currier’s discussion of all four of big bangs. Then come back and share your thoughts with the rest of us.
Mark Tapscott is HillFaith’s editor, IT jockey, spiritual guide, chief bottle washer and overall Jack-of-All-Trades. Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org
unsplash-logoSweet Ice Cream Photography