Big Bang theory and the problem of nothingness Essay
Big Bang theory and the problem of nothingness
The question of why there is something rather than nothing concerns with the creation of things in the universe – we know that all things come from other things, objects are made by humans, tress grow from seeds, etc. If the human mind traces back the roots of all these things, the causes of all these things, it will always come to an idea of a Maker – and for years the idea of the Maker has been held by God. But then, even the idea of a God or a Maker is dubious – who made the Maker? Yet, how can there always have been a something in the first place?
Or do we conceive a state of nothingness? That out of nothing comes something, probably the first maker or cause. The problem lies in how something can come out of nothing. A theory to sufficiently answer the question of nothingness must first prove that it indeed start out with nothing. The Big Bang Theory provides a model by which there seems to be nothing, and out of that nothingness came something – the formation of the cosmos and everything we know of. However, if the Big Bang Theory is true, it still does not answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing.
The Big Bang Model is the widely accepted theory of the universe’s evolution, with its premise that the universe started out as dense and hot state that has been expanding for about 14 billion years. First of all, the Big Bang Theory starts out with something – a particle, a hot and dense space. At its most basic level it already does not fulfill the requirements of nothingness. There could be nothing in that hot dense space – nothing material that our senses could perceive or our minds can imagine, but the laws of science tell us that all energy is transferred, nothing is lost.
Therefore, the energy of the hot dense space is what created other objects in space – the energy simply evolved or transferred. This proves that there is something rather than nothing even in the Big Bang Theory. This seems to be a tautological argument, but consider this – can nothingness expand? If the tenets of Big Bang Theory be considered, the question still arises – does nothingness have properties? Does nothingness have temperature? If the universe came from a hot, dense space, then it is not nothingness because nothingness does not have any properties – nothingness does not exist.
Any existence of a supposed property of nothingness defeats its state of nothingness. Therefore, the Big Bang Theory is just a substitute for the idea of a Maker – if we do not believe in God the Creator and subscribe to science instead, Big Bang is a good choice, but it still poses the question: where did the hot, dense space come from? Or at least, where did the heat and density come from? It seems then that the question of nothingness is still not solved.