Can something come from nothing?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Subject classification: this is a philosophy resource.

Today, there is a consensus among scientists that a Big Bang occurred and led to the creation of the universe. But what was there before the Big Bang? Where did all matter and energy come from? Did it come from nothing or was there something before our universe? Can something actually be created from nothing or must it always come from something else? The same applies to the disappearance of something – can something simply vanish, or does it still go somewhere?

Note: There is a discussion on the talk page.

Nothing can be created by nothing nothing can disappear into nothing

Pro

• Pro Logically, it should be impossible for something to come from nothing or something to disappear into nothing. It's simply unimaginable. A chair, for example, cannot simply disappear. It must exist somewhere in some form. If you burn a chair, it turns to ash. It may no longer be a chair, but the particles that made up the chair have dispersed into the air or are in the ash. The particles have not disappeared, but they still exist.
  • Objection A chair disappearing or appearing out of nothing may be unimaginable (I can imagine it though) but the criteria for logical impossibility is that a proposition should be inconsistent or contradictory like 'A married bachelor exists'. 'A chair disappeared completely.' doesn't fit that form.
• Pro Making something appear or disappear out of nowhere would be considered magic. That is simply not possible.

Con

• Con There never was nothing and something always existed so something didn't come from nothing but is the natural 'default' where approaches to explain why that is so are needed.
  • Objection Why is the approach of that "nothing came from nothing" the natural default for explaining why something is so? Then they might as well say, "we don't know what it originated from," instead of saying, "nothing caused it to originate, it originated by itself"?
    • Objection Exactly, we should say that we don't know why anything exists or how exactly the first Universe ultimately came to be in the sense of the ultimate first cause or first existence. That it originated by itself is what is being argued.