The “Something cannot come from nothing” Argument for God
This argument has been used for a long, long time. Basically, it goes like this:
1. Something cannot come from nothing (which is backed by the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed).
2. Somethings exist.
3. Therefore, something supernatural (above physical laws) must have created everything.
4. Therefore, God.
The common response “what created God?” is faulty. The point of the above argument is that nothing could have come into existence within physical laws. It is wrong to imagine that matter just poofed into existence. God, on the other hand, is meant to be above physical laws. Either he has always existed, or he could have poofed into existence since he would not be subject to physical laws.
However, consider replacing “God” with “the Flying Spaghetti Monster”. The FSM is above physical laws, so it could also have created everything. There is nothing to distinguish our concept of “God” that justifiably assumes his existence over any other supernatural explanation.
To fix this, just replace “God” with “something supernatural”. Does this argument work?
I want to say no, the existence of the universe does not necessitate something supernatural. There is clearly some knowledge that we do not have yet, but I believe that the “something supernatural” explanation is looking at the wrong problem.
Here’s an alternative argument:
1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Somethings exist.
3. The things that currently exist could not have come from not existing.
4. Therefore, the things that currently exist have never not existed.
5. Therefore, everything that exists has always existed.
This is where I believe the lack of knowledge exists. We cannot currently conceive of how everything that exists has always existed (my best explanation would be that time is somehow circular, with no beginning point). However, the lack of knowledge does not entail being wrong. To add a little support for why the alternative argument is a better argument, consider the way we think of time and space:
I’ll define space as all matter in the universe. Most people do not consider the idea that this matter could have always existed (which I am arguing for). However, at least subconsciously, they are assuming that time has always existed. If space needs a beginning point in time, should time also need one? It isn’t so clear that it does. My argument is that if time has always existed, space can conceivably exist the same way.