this post came to mind
Atheism in a nutshell:
"I have no proof God doesnāt exist."
"But Iāll mock you for believing in Him."
"I also believe the universe made itself."
Totally rational.
Discussion
This is a strawman argument. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods due to insufficient evidence. No serious atheist claims the universe āmade itselfā ā rather atheism follows the evidence wherever it leads. Mockery is directed at irrational beliefs, not at sincere inquiry.
Either the universe had a Creator or it made itself.
This statement sets up a false dichotomy, as if there were only two options: either the universe was created, or it somehow conjured itself into existence.
But reality isnāt that simplistic. Other possibilities exist:
1. The universe could be eternal, with no beginning and no need for a cause.
2. It could have emerged from a higher-order natural process, without requiring a conscious creator.
3. It might be part of a multiverse, where physical mechanisms continuously generate new universes.
The question of the universeās origin is complex and demands a deep dive into the laws of natureārather than a mere coin toss between two choices.
Pretty much all of science says the universe had a beginning and is expanding. I love how atheist are all about science until it no longer fits their narrative anymore. But yes this is the argument it always comes to with atheist and the creation argument that the universe must be eternal. It is a much better answer than "we don't know", I will give you that.
Truth is there is 2 choices here. There is either something eternal or something can come from nothing. There is no other choice here. If you believe the universe is eternal and intelligence came from non intelligence and life came from non life that is very unscientific but it still makes a lot more sense than something coming from nothing.
Thanks for the Zaps! š
I think you tend to make overly simplistic assumptions.
The question of the universeās origin is one of the greatest scientific and philosophical challenges. The prevailing scientific consensus, supported by cosmology and empirical evidenceāsuch as cosmic background radiation and the redshift of distant galaxiesāsuggests that the universe began with the Big Bang around 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. However, this does not necessarily mean it emerged from ānothing,ā nor does it rule out the possibility of some pre-existing reality.
The notion that there are only two optionsāeither something is eternal or it sprang from nothingāoversimplifies the complexity of modern cosmology. Theoretical physicists explore a range of possibilities, including quantum fluctuations in a timeless multiverse, cyclic universe models, and vacuum energy fluctuations that might give rise to space-time itself. While speculative, these ideas are grounded in physics and mathematics rather than mere metaphysics / religious beliefs.
The emergence of intelligence from non-intelligence and life from non-life is a separate but well-studied question, addressed by abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. These fields provide well-supported mechanisms showing how biological systems could arise from inorganic molecules through chemical evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a rigorously tested process that explains how complexity and intelligence can gradually emerge from simpler forms.
In science, uncertainty is not a flaw but a driving force for discovery. āWe donāt know yetā is an honest, intellectually responsible positionāone that leaves room for new insights rather than rushing to metaphysical conclusions. The real question is: do we seek answers through evidence and inquiry, or do we settle for explanations that simply feel satisfying?
it's just a fact and you said nothing at all to contradict it.
I did address your claim by pointing out that modern cosmology offers more than just the two options you presented. The fact that we donāt yet have a complete answer does not mean we must accept a false dichotomy. Science is about exploring possibilities based on evidence, not forcing conclusions to fit preconceived notions.
If you believe my response āsaid nothing at all to contradictā your claim, then either you did not engage with the points I made, or you are dismissing scientific inquiry in favor of a predetermined conclusion. Are you open to discussing alternative models supported by physics, or is your position fixed regardless of new evidence?
it's REALLY simple, if something is not eternal that means something had to come from nothing. This is SIMPLE logic.
Good day.
ššš I love how you say āSIMPLE logicā while presenting a classic false dilemma. Itās a bit like saying, āEither you eat pineapple on pizza, or youāre an enemy of humanity.ā Meanwhile, there are plenty of other alternativesāsuch as, you know, actually considering other scientific models.
Let me break this down for you:
1. āSomething canāt come from nothingā ā Sounds intuitive, but modern physics has explored concepts like quantum fluctuations, vacuum energy, and spontaneous emergence. The Big Bang isnāt just āNothing ā POOF ā Universe!ā Itās based on quantum mechanics and relativity.
2. āEither something is eternal, or it came from nothingā ā You present this as if these are the only two options, but modern cosmology offers others:
ā¢ Cyclic Universes (the universe expands, contracts, and repeats)
ā¢ Multiverse Theories (our universe is part of a larger āfoamā of universes)
ā¢ Quantum Cosmological Models, which challenge our classical understanding of space and time.
3. āAtheists ignore science when it doesnāt fit their narrativeā ā Oh, hello there, projection! Science changes its views based on new evidenceāthe exact opposite of faith, which clings to a fixed dogma.
4. āYou must give up your pride to believe in the Bibleā ā I donāt know whoās prouder: the person who says, āWe donāt know everything, but we keep exploring,ā or the one who says, āI have the absolute truth because a book told me so.ā š
At the end of the day, your argument doesnāt seem interested in scienceāit seems interested in certainty. But science isnāt here to satisfy our need for simple answers; itās here to understand reality, no matter how complex or counterintuitive it may be.
But hey, if you prefer to live in SIMPLE logic, have fun with that. Iāll try to stick with reality. šš
Cheers
Proverbs 26:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit.
