Have you ever thought about the beginning? I mean, what was really here first, at the beginning of time? There are two simple possibilities. The first theory is that in the beginning there was Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. The second theory says that in the beginning there was Something. You and I know that only one of these theories can be correct, but which one is it? Which one is true?
The first theory says that in the beginning there was Nothing. Well, let’s take a look and see if this is possible, see if this is reasonable. An illustration may help us out here. Let's say you have a very large closed box. This box is locked, permanently, and has no openings or holes of any kind in its walls. Excluding the walls of the box itself there is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing inside our box. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed box that's pitch black inside. OK, let's say your goal is to get Something--anything at all--into the box. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the box to do that. So what do you do?
Well, what if you try to create a spark inside the box? Then the box would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as Something wouldn’t it? Yes, but you are outside the box. So that is not allowed.
But, what if you could teleport Something into the box, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowed, because you'd be using things from outside the box. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get Something inside the box using only what's in the box. And, in this case, what's in the box is Nothing.
Well, maybe a tiny particle of Something will just show up inside our box if given enough time and chance. Maybe it will just “spontaneously generate.” That sounds possible, doesn’t it? After all, can’t virtually anything happen if given enough time?
That brings up the First real problem with our theory: Time. Time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake. In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed box with absolutely Nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?
The Second problem is chance. Is there really any possibility that chance could make something appear in our box? Well, if we are thinking of chance as a supposed agent or cause of change, then absolutely not. Chance has no power to do anything or change anything in any way because it simply is not anything. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. Chance has no power because it has no being. It has no existence. It has no more chance of doing something than Nothing has of doing something. There is absolutely no possibility that chance could ever make anything appear in our box. And even if we combine chance and time wouldn’t we still only have Nothing doing Nothing over a very long period of time?
The Third problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty box without a cause? Remember, there is no cause of any kind inside our box. There is Nothing inside the box at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There is Nothing inside the box to cause Something to "show up." But wait a minute, couldn't Something just create itself? Absolutely not! Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility. For Something to actually create itself it would have to be before it is. That is scientifically impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is impossible for any form of energy, light, or heat. It is impossible for any form of life, simple or complex. Nothing anywhere, anytime, can create itself.
But, what about a tiny particle of Something, say an atom? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in our empty box than Something gigantic like the earth? That brings up the Fourth problem: Size. We need to remember here that size is relative. Something is only “tiny” or “gigantic” in relation to something else. An atom is indeed tiny compared to the earth, but the earth is also tiny when compared to the entire universe. Does that really make it any easier for the earth to materialize out of nothing? Even an atom would appear to be gigantic when compared to one of its own subatomic particles? And wouldn’t any subatomic particle, no matter how small, be gigantic when compared to Nothing which has no size at all? Now if you don’t think that the earth could just pop into existence from nothing then you must conclude the very same thing for a single atom. For size really is not the issue. The question is not whether something large or small in relation to something else could “show up”, but whether or not any thing of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty box. The real likelihood of any tiny particle materializing without a cause is no different than the earth itself materializing out of nothing without a cause! For neither is possible.
Now let's stretch our analogy a little further, literally. Let's take our box of Nothing and remove its walls. And let's extend the box so it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now an infinity of Nothing is all there is, period. This infinity has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It is absolute Nothingness. This Nothingness has no nature, no causal powers, no time, no space, no change of any kind, or tendencies toward anything whatsoever. In fact, we can truly call it Absolutely Nothing.
So here's the big question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing right now? For Something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. However, something does exist. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, the very fact that you exist is proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed. Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.
Whether or not we can wrap our mind around it, Something is eternal. The “Big Bang” theory rules out the material universe because it had a definite beginning in space and time. If there was ever a point in time when the universe did not exist then it is not eternal. Something outside the material universe must be eternal or else you and I don’t really exist.
The first theory says that in the beginning there was Nothing. Well, let’s take a look and see if this is possible, see if this is reasonable. An illustration may help us out here. Let's say you have a very large closed box. This box is locked, permanently, and has no openings or holes of any kind in its walls. Excluding the walls of the box itself there is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing inside our box. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed box that's pitch black inside. OK, let's say your goal is to get Something--anything at all--into the box. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the box to do that. So what do you do?
Well, what if you try to create a spark inside the box? Then the box would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as Something wouldn’t it? Yes, but you are outside the box. So that is not allowed.
But, what if you could teleport Something into the box, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowed, because you'd be using things from outside the box. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get Something inside the box using only what's in the box. And, in this case, what's in the box is Nothing.
Well, maybe a tiny particle of Something will just show up inside our box if given enough time and chance. Maybe it will just “spontaneously generate.” That sounds possible, doesn’t it? After all, can’t virtually anything happen if given enough time?
That brings up the First real problem with our theory: Time. Time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake. In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed box with absolutely Nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?
The Second problem is chance. Is there really any possibility that chance could make something appear in our box? Well, if we are thinking of chance as a supposed agent or cause of change, then absolutely not. Chance has no power to do anything or change anything in any way because it simply is not anything. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. Chance has no power because it has no being. It has no existence. It has no more chance of doing something than Nothing has of doing something. There is absolutely no possibility that chance could ever make anything appear in our box. And even if we combine chance and time wouldn’t we still only have Nothing doing Nothing over a very long period of time?
The Third problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty box without a cause? Remember, there is no cause of any kind inside our box. There is Nothing inside the box at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There is Nothing inside the box to cause Something to "show up." But wait a minute, couldn't Something just create itself? Absolutely not! Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility. For Something to actually create itself it would have to be before it is. That is scientifically impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is impossible for any form of energy, light, or heat. It is impossible for any form of life, simple or complex. Nothing anywhere, anytime, can create itself.
But, what about a tiny particle of Something, say an atom? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in our empty box than Something gigantic like the earth? That brings up the Fourth problem: Size. We need to remember here that size is relative. Something is only “tiny” or “gigantic” in relation to something else. An atom is indeed tiny compared to the earth, but the earth is also tiny when compared to the entire universe. Does that really make it any easier for the earth to materialize out of nothing? Even an atom would appear to be gigantic when compared to one of its own subatomic particles? And wouldn’t any subatomic particle, no matter how small, be gigantic when compared to Nothing which has no size at all? Now if you don’t think that the earth could just pop into existence from nothing then you must conclude the very same thing for a single atom. For size really is not the issue. The question is not whether something large or small in relation to something else could “show up”, but whether or not any thing of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty box. The real likelihood of any tiny particle materializing without a cause is no different than the earth itself materializing out of nothing without a cause! For neither is possible.
Now let's stretch our analogy a little further, literally. Let's take our box of Nothing and remove its walls. And let's extend the box so it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now an infinity of Nothing is all there is, period. This infinity has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It is absolute Nothingness. This Nothingness has no nature, no causal powers, no time, no space, no change of any kind, or tendencies toward anything whatsoever. In fact, we can truly call it Absolutely Nothing.
So here's the big question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing right now? For Something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. However, something does exist. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, the very fact that you exist is proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed. Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.
Whether or not we can wrap our mind around it, Something is eternal. The “Big Bang” theory rules out the material universe because it had a definite beginning in space and time. If there was ever a point in time when the universe did not exist then it is not eternal. Something outside the material universe must be eternal or else you and I don’t really exist.
