If you accept eternity and infinity then,,,

“If there is something rather than nothing?” then surely this is an unassailable argument that requires the existence of a Creator. I mean, after all, out of nothing, nothing comes.

Yet, the old idea that nothing might involve empt space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by the view by astro phyicists et al, that we have arisen out of a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannotdetect them directly.

When we think of nothing what do we think of? Empty space, the absence of space itself. And really, how can something come out of nothing?

Yet the current phyisicist argument goes, nothing can morph into something because a state of nothing is an unstable state. not only can something arise from nothing, (particles, popping in and out of existence) but most often the laws of physics require that to occur.

We must not rule out that our universe arose from precisely nothing when it was embedded in a perhaps infinite space, or infinite collection of spaces, or spaces-to-be, some of which existed before ours came into being, and some of which are only now coming into, or going out of existence.  

If we take this view, the multiverse, (infinite space, or infinite collection of spaces)

as it has become known, could be eternal. If we accept the eternal and infinity

as a broad sweep of physicist now do, this rather rules out consequentalism

i.e. that creation was enacted by someone who created a place for us.

And don't forget those bubbling brew of virtual particles,

popping in and out of existence.

source: Sam Harris blog: http://www.samharris.org/blog

recomended reading A Universe from Nothing Laurence M. Krauss



English lessons on Skype at: http://tutoringexcellence.blogspot.co.uk/