Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because something is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing-more than twice as likely according to one calculation. We can infer this from the processes of nature where simple systems tend to be unstable and often spontaneously transform into more complex ones. Theoretical models such as the inflationary model of the early universe bear this out.

Consider the example of the snowflake. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly to drops of liquid water that exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high temperature environment, where collisions with molecules in thermal motion reduce the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to destroy the structure of a snowflake.

But consider an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating. In such an environment, any water vapor would readily crystallize into complex structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least will remain intact until cosmic rays tear them apart.

What this example illustrates is that many simple systems are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since “nothing” is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be completely stable. In some models of the origin of the universe, the vacuum undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any external agent.

As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.”

And you assert this with what factual evidence?

The real meaning of the question is not to find an answer, except to say that some god exists, but to show that atheists cannot explain everything and answer every question posed by theists.

I mean, is there really a *reason* why there is something? Does there have to be? And why is it so much more improbable that the reason is natural rather than supernatural? Just because it is the *ultimate* question?

In other words, is there a reason why the earth moves around the sun? Yes, there are physical laws that govern and explain earth’s movements, but is there something else behind its movements? The theists like to think that there is. Most atheists think otherwise.

But does this invalidate the atheist position in any way whatsoever? I think not. Why does there have to be some outside, conscious reason for any physical phenomenon? There doesn’t. For the human race, we like to think we are special in some way. That we are chosen. That we exist for some purpose bigger than we can imagine. But the simple truth is that we are quite insignificant, very minor specks in the grand universe. Does anyone outside our solar system even know that we exist? So, to fight against such a nihilistic attitude, theists propose some almighty deity that thinks we are special beings. To make us feel better, I suppose. Honestly, it doesn’t do much for me.

The entire universe, everything that we have any knowledge about, came into existence at some point in time about 14 million millennia ago. Before that, well, it’s anybody’s guess. As an atheist and a naturalist, I think that a natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural one. To support such an assertion, all we have to do is examine all the other misunderstandings that humans have had throughout history.

For example, it was once thought that the weather was controlled by the gods. It was once thought that the sun was controlled by the gods. It was once thought that the entire universe circled around the earth. We all now know otherwise. The beginning of the universe, its coming into existence, is no different. It is greater, obviously, and has to be considered the ultimate physical phenomenon of all time. But to credit the gods with its creation is the same as praying to the gods for a good rain shower to ease the drought.

Just because we do not understand something, does not necessitate a god to explain it.

Science is brave enough to answer those questions with an, "I don't know."

Saying that God created the universe explains no more than if I say the universe was created by magic.

When you say that you have a piece of pottery, but no potter, it seems like a reasonable hypothesis at first.

But... well, I'll just let Eliezer Yudkowsky say it for me:

"But when you look at all the apparent purposefulness in Nature, rather than picking and choosing your examples, you start to notice things that don't fit the Christian concept of one benevolent God. Foxes seem well-designed to catch rabbits. Rabbits seem well-designed to evade foxes. Was God having trouble making up His mind?

When I design a toaster oven, I don't design one part that tries to get electricity to the coils and a second part that tries to prevent electricity from getting to the coils. It would be a waste of effort. Who designed the ecosystem, with its predators and prey, viruses and bacteria? Even the cactus plant, which you might think well-designed to provide water fruit to desert animals, is covered with inconvenient spines.

The ecosystem would make much more sense if it wasn't designed by a unitary Who, but, rather, created by a horde of deities - say from the Hindu or Shinto religions. This handily explains both the ubiquitous purposefulnesses, and the ubiquitous conflicts: More than one deity acted, often at cross-purposes. The fox and rabbit were both designed, but by distinct competing deities. I wonder if anyone ever remarked on the seemingly excellent evidence thus provided for Hinduism over Christianity. Probably not.

Similarly, the Christian God is alleged to be benevolent - well, sort of. And yet much of nature's purposefulness seems downright cruel. Darwin suspected a non-standard Creator for studying Ichneumon wasps, whose paralyzing stings preserve its prey to be eaten alive by its larvae: "I cannot persuade myself," wrote Darwin, "that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." I wonder if any earlier thinker remarked on the excellent evidence thus provided for Manichaen religions over monotheistic ones.

By now we all know the punchline: You just say "evolution".

I worry that's how some people are absorbing the "scientific" explanation, as a magical purposefulness factory in Nature. I've previously discussed the case of Storm from the movie X-Men, who in one mutation gets the ability to throw lightning bolts. Why? Well, there's this thing called "evolution" that somehow pumps a lot of purposefulness into Nature, and the changes happen through "mutations". So if Storm gets a really large mutation, she can be redesigned to throw lightning bolts. Radioactivity is a popular super origin: radiation causes mutations, so more powerful radiation causes more powerful mutations. That's logic.

But evolution doesn't allow just any kind of purposefulness to leak into Nature. That's what makes evolution a success as an empirical hypothesis. If evolutionary biology could explain a toaster oven, not just a tree, it would be worthless. There's a lot more to evolutionary theory than pointing at Nature and saying, "Now purpose is allowed," or "Evolution did it!" The strength of a theory is not what it allows, but what it prohibits; if you can invent an equally persuasive explanation for any outcome, you have zero knowledge."

I'm hoping you don't think, "tl;dr", because this pretty much explains why the potter/pottery analogy is false.