Why Not Atheism — VacantTomb

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

This is the oldest question in philosophy, posed by Leibniz in 1714 and never satisfactorily answered by any atheist account. Why does anything exist at all? Not "why does the universe have the specific properties it has?" — that is a further question. The prior question is simpler and more radical: why is there something rather than nothing?

Lawrence Krauss and the failure of 'a universe from nothing'

In 2012, cosmologist Lawrence Krauss published A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. The book promised, in its title, to answer Leibniz's question using physics. It became a bestseller. It did not deliver what its title promised.

Krauss's argument is that quantum mechanics permits the spontaneous appearance of particles from the quantum vacuum — a state of minimum energy with no particles but rich in quantum fields, governed by precise mathematical laws. On Krauss's account, this is "nothing," and the quantum vacuum's capacity to produce particles is the mechanism by which the universe came from nothing.

The response from philosophers — including atheist philosopher David Albert, professor of philosophy of physics at Columbia University — was immediate and devastating:

The quantum-mechanical vacuum state... is not nothing. Relativistic quantum field theories are not — and this needs to be said very clearly — theories of nothing. They are theories of physical fields, which are real, physical entities spread throughout space and time. The fact that some of these fields happen to be in their vacuum state — which is a particular low-energy configuration — does not make them nothing. Krauss is not talking about nothing. He is talking about the quantum vacuum, which is a very particular, highly structured thing.
David AlbertSecular historian— On the Origin of Everything, New York Times, 2012

Albert's point is precise and irrefutable. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. It is something: a physical field with energy, structure, mathematical properties, and the capacity to interact with other physical things. It exists in space and time. Explaining how particles emerge from a quantum vacuum does not explain why there is a quantum vacuum rather than nothing. It relocates the question without answering it.

"Nothing," in the philosophically relevant sense, means the complete and total absence of being — no space, no time, no energy, no fields, no laws of physics, no mathematical structure, no quantum vacuum. The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" asks why this absolute nothingness is not the case. Physics cannot answer this question, because physics always starts with something — some physical substrate, some laws, some structure. It never starts from genuinely nothing.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the universe's beginning

As established in the Why Christianity Foundation, the Kalam Cosmological Argument provides a powerful case for the universe having a cause outside itself:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

P2The universe began to exist.

∴Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

The second premise — the universe began to exist — is confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence: Big Bang cosmology, the expansion of the universe (Hubble, 1929), the second law of thermodynamics (entropy increase rules out an eternal past), and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (2003), which proves mathematically that any universe in a state of cosmic expansion must have had a finite beginning.

Alexander Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem and not a theist, acknowledged the force of this conclusion:

With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.
Alexander VilenkinSecular historian— Many Worlds in One, 2006

The cause of the universe cannot be physical — physical reality did not yet exist. It cannot be temporal — time itself began at the singularity. It must be non-physical, timeless, spaceless, immensely powerful, and personal. These are the classical attributes of God.

The atheist who says "the universe has always existed" is contradicted by every major line of cosmological evidence accumulated over the past century. The atheist who says "the universe came from nothing, uncaused" has violated the most fundamental principle of rational inquiry — that things do not come from nothing without cause. The atheist who says "the universe was caused by something physical" has described a physical state that preceded the universe — which is either part of the universe (explaining nothing) or requires its own explanation.

The Leibnizian argument and necessary existence

The Kalam argument addresses the beginning of the universe in time. A related but distinct argument addresses why the universe exists at all, regardless of whether it had a beginning.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

P1Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

P2If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, necessary being.

P3The universe exists.

∴The universe has an explanation: a transcendent, necessary being.

The universe is contingent — it could have not existed. There is no logical contradiction in a universe that never began, or one with different physical laws, or no universe at all. Contingent things require explanations beyond themselves. The universe therefore requires an explanation beyond itself.

That explanation cannot itself be contingent — if it were, we would need a further explanation for it, and so on to infinity. There must be something that exists necessarily — whose non-existence is impossible, whose existence requires no external cause, whose being is self-explanatory. Physical things are contingent by nature. Mathematical objects are abstract and causally inert. The only candidate for a necessary, causally efficacious being is what classical theology calls God.

The common atheist response — "the universe just exists; it has no explanation; it is a brute fact" — is a coherent position but it comes at a price: it abandons the Principle of Sufficient Reason (everything has an explanation) selectively, applying it everywhere except to the universe's own existence. This is philosophically ad hoc. The theist has a consistent account: contingent things have external causes; the one non-contingent thing (God) is its own explanation.

← PreviousThe Existence of Consciousness Next →The Fine-Tuning Problem

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Lawrence Krauss claimed physics answers this — but David Albert (atheist philosopher) showed the quantum vacuum is not nothing. The Kalam argument establishes the universe had a beginning requiring a non-physical, personal cause. The Leibnizian argument requires a necessary being as the termination of all contingent explanation.

Key claims

—David Albert (atheist philosopher of physics): the quantum vacuum "is not nothing" — Krauss answered the wrong question
—The Kalam: universe began (Big Bang, 2nd law of thermodynamics, Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem) → requires non-physical, personal cause
—Vilenkin (cosmologist, not a theist): "Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe"
—The Leibnizian argument: contingent things require external causes; the regress terminates in a necessary being
—"The universe just exists" abandons the Principle of Sufficient Reason selectively — only for the one case it most needs to explain

Scholars cited

Lawrence KraussAtheist cosmologist
David AlbertAtheist philosopher of physics
Alexander VilenkinCosmologist
William Lane CraigPhilosopher

Other foundations

Why Christianity

Why Not Islam

I'm Struggling

✝