Is the “something can’t come from nothing” argument flawed with a blatant assumption?
When you’re thinking scientifically about something, you’ve got to free your mind of assumptions. Assumptions have the effect of damaging your observations and therefore damaging any conclusions you draw from the observations. The argument, “something can’t came from nothing,” regarding the origin of the universe, has a big assumption in it – that there was once nothing then there was something. Is it wrong to assume that there was once nothing when we have no evidence proving there was once a state of nothing?
When you’re thinking scientifically about something, you’ve got to free your mind of assumptions. Assumptions have the effect of damaging your observations and therefore damaging any conclusions you draw from the observations. The argument, “something can’t came from nothing,” regarding the origin of the universe, has a big assumption in it – that there was once nothing then there was something. Is it wrong to assume that there was once nothing when we have no evidence proving there was once a state of nothing?