The Natural Nothing to Something

Common sense would tempt humans to ask: "how can something arise from nothing"? The simple religious remedy to such a perplexing problem submits by the will of a Creator. As it turns out modern science provides a simpler suggestion. It is clear that particles of simple systems most often are unstable. Such systems naturally undergo phase transitions to a lower energy state self-organizing into more complex stable systems. The most direct example is water. Vapor gas is unstable when compared to liquid water, which is more unstable then crystallized water. Each stage of the phase change progression becomes not just more stable but more complex. Ultimately ending with ice or snowflakes, structures that are drastically different from the initial state. Since this is a natural phenomenon (simple system to complex structure) why would the development of our universe be so different? Try to conceive of the simplest possible system; what you should come up with is "nothing". Following the same logic that simple systems are unstable, "nothing" would have to be tremendously unstable, in turn transforming into something more complex (Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis).
At this point it is crucial to discuss the idea of nothing. One may argue the snowflake did not come from nothing in the same sense as planets and galaxies. The snowflake came from liquid water that came from vapor gas. Not nothing! The previous claim dose make a point but ignores the fact that just as a snowflake came from prerequisite particles so did matter in the universe. The nothing is actually something, the big bang theory does not support otherwise. If one were to still be desperate to find absolute nothing, it may be suggested that the nothing we are searching for preceded the big bang singularity. This is one speculation of many, one of which (concerning evidence/experimental progress) pales in comparison to others such as the “no boundary model” presented by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle and “The tunneled” theory presented by Victor Stenger. Consider a tenacisous debater who just was not convinced by developing scientific research dealing with time before Planck Time and pushed the issue of absolute nothing. The question must be raised, why would the solution point to a creator. Using this concept of nothing, no human creator has ever created anything from absolute nothing therefore where would the inspiration for a divine creator come from? Such an argument would begin to fall into the field of the ontological argument. The argument in summary states. 1. God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. 2. Existence in reality is better than existence in one's imagination 3. Therefore God must exist in reality. The destruction for the ontological arguement has been shown by many philosophers, but the following example is presented by Douglas Gasking :
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist
(Grey, Gasking's Proof. Analysis 60 (4): 368-70).
Since something coming from nothing has been reduced to a natural event, it may be conceded that the only possible situation calling for a supernatural creator is one so eliquently put by Victor Stenger the event in which nothing was forever maintained in the universe (meaning no matter, no order, no big bang). In conclusion it is safe to say the only plausible creator possiblity did not occur, nothing in fact became something.