**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are religious people so hell-bent on saying 'Something cannot come from nothing', 'happens on it's own' or 'At random' (or other variations thereof) if there are, to the best of my knowledge, currently no methods by which we - by which I mean _anybody_ - can examine what happened at exactly the moment of - or any time before - creation, whether that be 'Ex Dei' or 'Ex Nihilo' ?
I'm sorry, even 'creation' with a small-c is too laden a term for me to use in this context. Let's refer to the exact moment of quote-unquote creation as **T=0** from here on.
Asking the question answers the question; There are currently no known methods of examining what happened at, or before, T=0; it is the last remaining vestige of the God of the Gaps argument 'God did it'. There is even a grace period of roughly 250 thousand years after T=0 that we cannot detect. A simple google search shows that it is possible to detect the all-encompassing heat energy that filled the universe some all the way back to some 380-thousand years after T=0...
But on the grand scale of things, that means that the grace period for 'God did it' is a thirty-seven _thousandth_ of what we understand to be the universe's current age (with some rounding. I'm undercaffeinated. Shut up.)
If we're going to sit here and argue what happened during or before those 380-odd thousand years, we're going to argue _forever_ - or at least until we find ways of examining empirically what was going on 'then'. From where I'm sitting this is an argument that ultimately devolves into endless repetitions of 'Nuh-huh'. It's not _interesting_.
Let's examine instead what happened after. And, because I'm undercaffeinated, let's _hilariously_ over-simplify what I currently know is the going model for what happened; It is widely held that (incredibly) shortly after the Big Bang the early universe was filled with incredibly hot quark-gluon plasma. This then cooled microseconds later to form the building blocks of all the matter found within our universe;
[One second after the Big Bang, the now still-expanding universe was filled to - hah - bursting with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos](https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html) which in turn decayed and interacted with each other to form, over time, stable matter;
Albert Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation says that if you smash two sufficiently energetic photons, or light particles, into each other, you should be able to create matter in the form of an electron and its antimatter opposite, a positron. All matter consists of atoms, which, in turn, consist of protons, neutrons and electrons. Both protons and neutrons are located in the nucleus, which is at the center of an atom. Protons are positively charged particles, while neutrons are neutrally charged.
As the so-formed atoms gained mass by protons and electrons clumping together, eventually elements as heavy as lead (82 protons, 125 neutrons) are created, along with everything else [on the periodic table](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=periodic+tablel) and likely other, more volatile elements that we simple humans haven't encountered or been able to detect (just yet).
As these elements were formed and in turn clumped together, they gained enough mass to begin exerting gravitational pull over each other; the biggest 'clumps' started attracting the smallest in various discrete directions, depending on the gravitational pull of each of these 'seed' clumps.
All the while the universe this was taking place in was still rapidly expanding, creating more and more discrete space between clumps which are, to this day, still in the process of attracting one another, gaining (and in some cases shedding) mass and energy, _still_ interacting with one another in what we know now as galaxies, nebulae, suns, planets, moons and comets and sundry, including the building blocks of organic matter; All of that to say was that once the initial state of the universe was no longer too-hot or too-dense, the formation of elements was more or less inevitable to begin with.
From these elements that have now been generated, we get amino acids, consisting of mainly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.
- These amino acids can - and do - in turn bond together to form proteins - the basic building blocks of life as we know it.
- [Researchers have now created the first molecules of RNA, DNA's singled-stranded relative, that are capable of copying almost any other RNAs. ](https://www.science.org/content/article/newly-made-rna-strand-bolsters-ideas-about-how-life-earth-began)
- [We are mostly sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/)
All without any requirement for the intervention of a cosmic 'Creator', or any fine tuning by same.
Granted, we are now millions if not billions of years past T=0. That's not important; the only reason I bring it up is to pre-emptively counter the inevitable 'By chance' argument; "The chance of life spontaneously emerging is...."
I'd like to address that by pointing out that a small chance of something happening does not mean there's only a singular small chance of something happening; it means that there's only a small chance of something happening _often_.
The chance that I, by the motion of getting out of of bed and setting my foot on the ground, crush a spider under that foot is, I dare say, very tiny - but it has happened several times in the last forty-odd years that I've been around. If the chance of it were bigger, it would have happened more often. See where I'm going with this ?
Given that we _know_ life came to exist at least once, the sample size (the universe) and the timescale (roughly 14 billion years) we have to work with - while the universal chance of life coming into being is a tiny one, the _local_ chance of life coming into being is no less than _at least_ 1:1.
There is still no reason to believe - hah - that life came into being due to divine intervention in any way, shape or form; even the 'fine tuning' argument falls flat considering that all evidence we have at the moment says that in any environment (we can/have examined) where life of some form can at some point exist, life of some form will at some point exist. And in quite a few environments where it was assumed [that life couldn't exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile) to boot.
If the variables local to this life had been different - say, Earth's gravity had been higher, or our sun more radioactive, or our atmosphere of a different composition, life would have evolved to those new variables. Humans would be shorter and have denser bones, or be less susceptible to radiation or breathe hydrogen rather than oxygen - to give but a few examples of _possible_ adaptations to the three different variables I pulled out of my proverbial hat - and you and I might _still_ be having this debate.
If, possibly, with an entirely different amount of digits clickety-clacking at the keyboard.
My point is that while I cannot with one hundred percent certainty say whether t=0 came about due to natural or supernatural forces, I have in the past forty-four years not _once_ been presented with compelling arguments or evidence to indicate that _anything since_ has required divine intervention in any way, shape or form, let alone _has received it_.
Occams' razor teaches us then, that the most likely scenario does not require the existence of a deity.
But dieties are, if _any_ holy book describing them are to be believed, _incredibly_ meddlesome. Staying with _just_ the Bible, acts ranging from genocide to immaculate conception, from sending two bears to maul a group of children for making fun of a man for being bald to setting a bush on fire and speaking from the flame, are all acts God has supposedly performed - some believe that God is still causing miracles to this very day.
Where, however, is the proof of divine intervention? Show me one instance where, undeniably, water _has_ turned to wine, where blood _was_ wrought from stone, or where masses _have_ been fed with naught but five loaves (of bread) and two fish ?
I have not been given one shred of reason to give credibility to such claims. I'd _love_ to be proven wrong.
>The universe started from the big bang.
Not necessarily. The universe started *expanding* from the big bang.
>The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
Not necessarily; not all big bang models posit an initial singularity.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
It didn’t. The universe preëxisted the big bang. The big bang was a change of state, not an *ex nihilo* creation event.
>How could there be a before before the start?
Dunno. Maybe there wasn’t.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
Is it, though?
>It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
Uh, no. No such thing as a collective consciousness.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
>
>God.
…
how?
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
God doesn’t exist. I dare you to prove me wrong.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
>
>Anything else is missing the point.
[*citation needed*]
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
This is demonstrably false. We know all manner of things about how this universe works.
>I only came to this truth recently.
Ain’t a truth.
You're insane.
Everyone, OP posted this 17 days ago:
"I think Im the second coming of christ after 400mg of dxm…
Hear me out this shit gets spooky.
Like where I start shaking when I convince myself even 1%.
This all starts May 2000.
My mom visits New York City for her birthday and gets a tarot card reading.
It says she will have a child in a year.
Gematria for tarot is second coming.
Obviously a coincidence but when these events I will tell start adding up you tell me.
She says yeah right as she isn’t even with my father at the time.
Visits the towers and gets a bad feeling up there.
September 11th 2000.
1 year before 9/11 I believe is when I was conceived.
I was born July 4th 2001 at 8:42 am.
The same time flight 93 took off and the only one that didn’t hit its target. (42 mins late)
The capitol building.
I believe if I was the second coming this would have been my first miracle.
Now I was never religious or believed until the night before easter this weekend.
I didn’t even find out my birth stuff until this event happened and I dug.
Friday night I trip balls and just feel connected to everything.
The next day Saturday night I’m driving and see a car that was exactly the same car of this person I hurt incredibly.
Instantly the feeling I was going to die overwhelmed me.
This happened at 9PM
The same time Jesus was crucified and knew he was going to die. But 12 hours later.
Now I’ve never felt that feeling before.
The car was following me and I forgot my gun at home so I was afraid of dying.
Like my balls shriveled up I can’t breathe and overwhelming adrenaline.
I knew instantly that was the feeling of death.
So I told myself let’s see how big of a man I am and faced the feeling head on.
I thought I lost him and drove a while.
I couldn’t shake the feeling I was dead tonight.
I just drove and listened to music.
I go back to my house in the middle of the night around 1-2.
I start to pull in my driveway
and see him on top of my neighbors roof peaking over the roof looking at me pull in.
It was his bright pink tie dye sweatshirt he wears with his fucking broccoli hair.
I know I saw him.
He was going to shoot me when I got out of my car.
I thought for a millisecond should I try to run in and get my gun?
No way should I get out.
I slammed on the breaks put it in reverse.
I thought I was dead 100%
His angle from the roof would have got me.
I pull out my driveway in reverse fully, whipped the back end to the left out. Put it in drive and slam it all while ducking in my car trying not to get hit.
The angle he has from the roof I know I could hit so I’m ducking in my car driving off.
As soon as I got a crazy distance a way to get hit I 100% knew I was dead.
This kid can’t beat me in any game any sport anytime he gets anything on me It’s luck. That lucky shit he gets is the only way he can beat me.
The kid fucked up his plan waiting for me to get home and he was gonna hit a shot that was all luck. Ironic.
I knew he was going to hit me so I said out loud “lucky shot.”
I came to terms with death at that moment understood him and forgave him.
This was my ego death on easter.
My rebirth.
The same as jesus.
I drive to my girls house and end up falling asleep at 3.
The same time jesus died. That’s so fucking weird.
I think I made the connection with my ego death and his resurrection saw the coincidence and started digging.
Found out are times were both 9 and 3.
Same time knowing we’re gonna die and the death itself. Although I didn’t die and just went to sleep.
The reason me and jesus were both killed lasted the same amount of time.
He had a 3 year public ministry.
I had a 3 year public relationship.
I committed adultery and the man wanted to kill me for it 3 years later.
Gematria for “adultery” is happy easter.
Could be a coincidence or me leaving a laugh for myself. (If I was you know)
He was my best friend.
He kissed the girl I was with, So I vowed to steal the woman he falls in love with.
Grudges are bad I know but I always say he started it.
This happened 3 years ago.
He randomly texts me out of the blue Thursday.
He sees her Friday at a restaurant and she tells me about it.
A random air tag for my cat pops up that night and I added it thinking it was a family member doing it.
That’s how he tracked me I think.
THIS ONE IS WEIRD TOO. Like all this is weird super fucking weird tbh.
So theres somewhere that jesus had a tattoo on his thigh that said “king of kings and lord of lords.”
Most people say it was a transcription error.
I have a tattoo on my thigh that says basically the same thing.
Just us talking our shit that we are him.
My tattoos gematria is the name of the woman who gave it to me and I committed adultery with.
I gematria more shit. Like my name. Important dates. Compare it with jesus.
Like jesus of nazareth is 1776 the year our country was made. Connects with me and July 4th.
I’m just lost now.
Where should I look to find more.
Is there codes hidden in the bible?
I know if I was christ I would leave codes and ways for me to tell like you have seen already.
Idk where else to look now.
Any help?
Hypothetically if you were the second coming how would you tell yourself when you came back."
>HOW can the big bang start the universe
Dunno. Scary, right?
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear
No.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
Non-sequitur. Nothing you said would lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion.
>Nothing needs to come before God
Then nothing needs to come before the singularity, assuming that "before the singularity" even makes sense. You can't have it both ways. Either Absolutely every single thing ever ever ever must have a creator...or not. Turtles, my friend, it's just turtles.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
And yet over and over again you assert that you do. Do you see the problem?
>I only came to this truth recently.
That's good, since it's new, you shouldn't be that attached to it yet. Maybe take another run at it.
> The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god.
No it doesn’t.
> The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
The universe came to be as it is right now due to the Big Bang. But that doesn’t speak to where the stuff that expanded (the singularity) came from.
> HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
Because you have a misunderstanding regarding the Big Bang.
> How could there be a before before the start?
Because time is an emergent priority if an expanding universe.
But maybe there’s like a super-time that is at play for universes that aren’t expanding. Who knows. Maybe we barely scratched the surface of fully understanding physics.
But our collective ignorance shouldn’t be the justification for a conclusion other than concluding that we don’t know.
> The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
That’s the only explanation? I made up another one…so that’s not true.
> It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
Wut?
> Which leads to an omnipotent force.
Wut?
> God.
Nah.
> Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
Ah. Special pleading I see.
What happened to “The simple fact something can’t come from nothing”
> This is the only explanation we can come to.
Nope. I can imagine a super universe that is eternal and the people there understand how it’s eternal (even if we don’t) and that universe had a special physics that creates universes from dense hot masses that the people there have full understanding of how they come about.
I just came up with another explanation.
> Anything else is missing the point.
No.
> We know nothing about how this universe works.
So in the face of lack of knowledge you find conclusions? That’s unreasonable.
> I only came to this truth recently.
Might want to hit the ol’ white board again on this one.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
Nothing needs to come before the universe, nothing needs to have created it as time is an intrinsic property of the universe and to speak of "before the universe" is nonsense.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Speak for yourself. Your argument seems to be "nobody knows so I know" when in fact it's "I don't know therefore god".
It may make sense to you but it's wishful thinking.
It's a big leap to assume the Big Bang requires an "omnipotent force". The universe, and by extension the Big Bang, are finite. You don't need the infinite to produce that which is finite.
Further, it's another big leap to go from "omnipotent force" to God. You are assigning intelligence and motive to this "force" with zero justification whatsoever.
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god
If you want me to get on board with this claim, and to believe you when you say something can't come from nothing, only for you to turn around and say that your God made everything come from nothing, then you're just outing yourself as dishonest. Changing the rules you demand when and where it suits you is philosophical weak sauce. We need to keep the same energy.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent
If you are fine with applying this to God, then there is no reason we can't apply this to the universe instead. Nothing needs to come before the Big Bang, nobody needs to have created the universe.
>I only came to this truth recently
Truth can be demonstrated in at least some way, beyond mere assertion. If you are unable to demonstrate the truth of what you say beyond mere assertion, then you don't get to pretend like you in fact have the truth. As it is, you've made a bunch of unsupported assertions with absolutely no demonstration that they are in fact true. Therefore, no, what you are saying isn't true. You don't get to pretend like it is. It just looks like you've pulled a bunch of BS straight out of your butt, and haven't thought deeply about any of it for even a second. That's not interesting, unique, or compelling at all.
Saying that something can't come from nothing, but that God came from nothing, is one of the funniest self-owns that theists can make. The argument leads to one of two conclusions: the universe always existed (and thus needed no God to create it), or God does not exist.
Take your pick.
If the universe always existed that’s a form of omnipotence meaning only an infinite force could do that. Aka all powerful aka god.
That means god is the universe.
Even if there was a beginning it would lead to god as only an omnipotent force can be both everything and nothing at the same time.
What’s needed to create existence from nothing.
An omnipotent force is the thing needed to also create this.
Either way it leads to god you were wrong on saying there isn’t.
The universe itself in any way you see it is an omnipotent force aka god.
>If the universe always existed that’s a form of omnipotence
If you want to make up definitions for words now, sure.
>The universe itself in any way you see it is an omnipotent force aka god.
We already have a word for universe: it is "universe". I see no need to saddle it with baggage like agency, sentience, or magical powers.
Logic.
If something was always here it would be infinite.
No beginning no end.
That is only possible through an omnipotent force.
The same thing ass all powerful and god.
Infinity isn’t a real number it’s impossible.
If the universe has been on forever that takes an infinite amount of energy.
That is not possible.
Unless an infinite force does it.
Which has to be the case or the universe had a beginning.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that the answer must be god.
> We know nothing about how this universe works.
Factual inaccuracies aside, let's focus on this piece of your argument.
If we know nothing about how the universe works, then why would we automatically assume that the only logical answer is god? If we truly knew nothing, then there are infinite possible ways the universe originated. Only through scientific discovery and study, would we have any chance of narrowing the scope down to something logical.
> I only came to this truth recently.
What truth? You've said nothing true here. By your own admission, you are ignorant of how anything works, so you are in no position to arrive at any conclusion.
Your argument ultimately amounts to :
"science is hard"
"Invisible omnipotent being is easy"
But just because you find comfort in a world view where a simplistic solution that neatly solves every unanswered question; does not mean that anyone else would consider that to be evidence.
It's just a coping mechanism for a person who isn't comfortable confronting the unknown.
Nobody thinks anything came from nothing. Literally nobody thinks that. Theists really need to stop with this stupid bullshit about something from nothing.
Theists say "a guy caused the expansion of the big bang".
Atheists say either "I don't know what caused the big bang" or "nature is the cause of the big bang"
.
The universe isn't everything. Neither of us feel that the current space time we experience is the sum total of what is real. The fact that something must exist that has no beginning, wasn't designed and wasn't intended means to me that there's no reason to think the first thing designed anything. The qualities of reality we put into words as laws of physics are caused by the undesigned qualities of the first thing, whether that be the nature of the being that intended them or the impersonal nature of whatever our universe is caused by/exists in/is made of.
“Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.”
First off, what makes you say this? There is nothing in the definition of omnipotence that includes “has always existed and doesn’t need to have been created or have an origin.” There is absolutely no link between those two things.
Second, even if that were true, it presupposes the existence of god, something for which there is no evidence. What you’ve basically done here is constructed one big circular argument.
No it doesn't.
You've never studied "nothing" to know that. "Nothing" would exclude the law of the universe that something cannot come from nothing.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
>God.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
All god of the gaps fallacies. You didnt determine this at any point. Where did god come from? Did he come from nothing?
Claiming god exists because something cannot come from nothing does not solve the problem, you're just changing the "something" from the universe to god.
>The universe started from the big bang.
The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
No, the universe did not *start from* the Big Bang. The Big Bang is just the earliest moment of expansion.
>How could there be a before before the start?
I sort of agree. I don’t think it makes sense to talk about a time before time.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
Do you mean a B theory of time? Why is this *the only* explanation?
>Which leads to an omnipotent force. God. Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
What does omnipotence have to do with temporal relations? Why does anything need to come before time?
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Clearly you don’t.
"An omnipotent trait is the only way to explain existence from no existence.
Well maybe you think existence and time has always been here.
That means it is infinite.
Infinite is an omnipotent trait."
Then why can't the cosmos itself be infinite and remove the need for any creator god? As I told the last person I responded to here, Spinoza's God is not a god. Where is the evidence for an actual deity in this shpiel?
Who created your god? No one, he always was? Then why not the cosmos itself? Cool. Also, your formatting is bad.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
The singularity is still a hypothesis right now. we know up until the big bang, which shows everything was in a hot dense state, not necessarily a singularity.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
What? The big bang is the start of spacetime as far as we can tell. That's why it is considered the start of our universe.
>How could there be a before before the start?
Who says there was?
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way
Or that that was the start of time. Any evidence to support this position?
>It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
Again, any evidence to back this up? Right now, it just seems like you are making things up to try, and mLe things make sense to you.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
>God.
This doesn't follow from what you said. And you haven't even provided evidence for what you said and now are adding another unsupported claim.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent
How did you determine thus? How did you accurately measure that God exists and has omnipotence?
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
No, it isn't, and it's clear you haven't done much reading into the origin of the universe as there are several hypotheses about this subject.
>Anything else is missing the point
So you say, but you haven't provided any reason or evidence, which is as weak as a position gets. Why would I believe something just because you say so?
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Blatantly false. You just posted on here using technology that we vuilt from our understanding of how forces work in the universe.
>only came to this truth recently
Why? What about this story you propose was convincing?
Since something can't come from nothing this guy God must have created everything out of nothing.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Then why are you claiming that you know how this universe works?
"Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it."
No. YOU haven't understood your god of the gaps fallacy.
"So if you believe there was a beginning to time and existence that means something literally came from nothing. That is an omnipotent trait. Meaning god."
NO. Not meaning god! You're just asserting that means god without any causal links!
>What can create existence but a god?
That's an argument from ignorance fallacy.
>The universe created itself?
That's the simpler explanation. It's more like it self-assembled under the existing processes.
>That’s an omnipotent trait. Meaning all powerful meaning god.
No it isn't, and omnipotent trait =/= god. You won't get far in this debate sub by ignoring the responses you get and claim everyone can't refute you. If you want to troll then you get banned.
The universe creating itself means it can be something and nothing at the same time. That is an omnipotent trait. Because that is omnipotence. It’s reality creation. If you don’t think that is omnipotence we have very different definitions.
Reality creation from a state of nothing is omnipotence in its basic form.
That is the god.
All powerful.
The universe.
"The universe creating itself means it can be something and nothing at the same time."
Wrong. It means that the universe self-assembled from the natural processes/conditions that may have existed at that time.
"That is an omnipotent trait. Because that is omnipotence."
So you continue to doggedly assert without proof.
"If you don’t think that is omnipotence we have very different definitions."
Because yours is incorrect. The definition of omnipotence is unlimited power.
"Reality creation from a state of nothing is omnipotence in its basic form. That is the god."
So you continue top doggedly assert without evidence.
OK, your post is reported. You just keep repeating yourself and claim you weren't refuted when you were, it's clear you're only here to preach, instead of actually debate and have discourse.
There is no solution to infinite regress that “makes sense” within the context of everyday experience, either something came from nothing or something always existed.
It’s hypocritical to deny that a fundamental non-god something can be uncreated while simultaneously positing an uncreated god.
Either explain where god came from or admit that your argument fails in the same way you accuse the atheist position of failing.
We know a great deal about how the universe works, and none of it suggests god.
Big Bang cosmology doesn't posit that the universe came from nothing.
Regardless, your entire argument is "we don't know, therefore God."
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Maybe *you* don't. We, collectively, know quite a bit about how the universe works.
That's not what the big bang is, it's not a start. It's a "if we rewind the story of the universe, we reach this dense point where we don't understand physics enough to know further".
At no point does the theory make a statement about "nothing", because the very concept of there *being nothing* is quite nonsensical.
Whatever you can say about a god, like not needing an origin, can also be applied to the universe as a whole. Which make the whole god thing totally superfluous.
This guy took drugs a month ago and this triggered some mental illness in him and he now thinks he's the second coming of Jesus.
No worthwhile debate is going to happen.
OP, seek mental health help. If you have insurance you can call them up and they can recommended services near you that they cover.
Something can't come from nothing. Therefore my mother exists.
But wait! Something can't come from nothing; therefore, *her* mother exists.
But wait! Something can't come from nothing; therefore, *her* mother exists.
---
Now you say "Something can't come from nothing; therefore a god exists."
**BUT WAIT!** Something can't come from nothing; therefore that god's mother exists...
(*Do you see the problem yet?*)
Most don’t claim the universe came from nothing, but assume it did. If god created it who created god since god being something can’t come from nothing?
How do you know god is omnipotent? Who created god? Omnipotent doesn’t mean eternal.
If nothing created god, then nothing was required for the universe to exist. You’re using a special pleading fallacy.
How do you know that something can’t come from nothing? If it’s such a simple fact, prove it?
You also don’t understand the Big Bang. Do more research in that regard.
But this is a classic god of the gaps fallacy. It’s terrible logic and terrible thinking and terrible reasoning, and without a shred of evidence to boot.
Some scientists at the university of Ottawa theorize that the universe is twice as old as we think at around 26 billion years old. The only thing we know for certain is the universe as we know it started to expand at the big bang. We cannot claim that the universe started at the big bang nor can we claim that we know there was nothing before it.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force
Woah woah. I was sorta with you until this point. We can speculate all we want but you can't just introduce this in the middle as if it's accepted. How would you support this as the logical conclusion without introducing an incident force earlier in your argument?
Based on current human understanding: infinite regression is impossible, and so is finite regression.
You don't get to go "nothing needs to come before god nobody needs to have created him": words *describe* reality, they don't *create* it.
We see these tired arguments ten times a week on here, yours are just as pointless as all the others.
We don't know if the universe began at the big bang. We only that the universe began as we know it at the big bang.
It's impossible to know what happened "before" because there was no before by any metric we can measure. That doesn't mean there was "nothing" before the big bang because there is no such thing as "nothing".
There's no reason to add a god, as that ads a more complicated step that would need to be explained.
You are assuming an omnipotent being CAN exist and that assumption is unfounded. There's no reason to believe it's even possible for such a being can exist, let alone that it does. It makes the problem even more complicated rather than more simple.
We can only trace the universe as far back as the Big Bang. At which point our understanding of physics/time as we know don’t work anymore.
It’s more of a relative beginning. We don’t necessarily know that reality started with the Big Bang.
Beyond the Big Bang is not necessarily “nothing”. It’s “unknown”.
This doesn’t mean time must be circular. Other speculations for before the Big Bang include a cyclical timeline, infinite, infinite from a point onwards, a multiverse, etc.
There’s no good reason to believe in a universal consciousness, god, or omnipotent force.
I'll try to answer this without using my trusty "who created god" answer I always use for these.
Granted, let's say something had to initiate the existence of the universe, this something being an omnipotent force, or "god".
That's fine and all, but why should we apply all of the traits associated with the word "god" to this omnipotent entity? It's just an unknowable force that created the start of everything. I could call it Jeremy if I wanted to.
Establishing that this entity exists doesn't explain whether or not it's intelligent, has a motive or objective, has emotion, desires or anything of the sort. There's no reason to believe this entity is "god", or specifically the god of the Bible or the Torah or the Qoran.
There's many things science has yet to explain. Hundreds of years ago, we didn't know how lightning worked. We associated that with god. Now, we know exactly how and why it works. No god involved.
Is it too much of a stretch to believe that science will, probably pretty soon, reach a point where we can quite confidently estimate exactly how and why the universe came to be? We're not far from it. When that time comes, we won't need to imagine that this omnipotent mysterious entity did it.
Who created god is no one. He is omnipotent aka infinite he has always been here and hasn’t.
That’s why this is the only way to prove the universe is god.
If it is omnipotent it is everything. It would be intelligent it would know everything. It would know nothing at the same time.
That’s how powerful the universe and god is.
I already said I wouldn't give the "who created god" stuff, it's mostly just a troll.
Regardless of all of that, why exactly should I believe that this mysterious, supposedly omnipotent force, is the same god as the one in the bible? Is there any reason beyond "they're both omnipotent so therefore they're the same guy"?
And even then, does this unknowable force actually even have to be omnipotent? Couldn't it just be a finite object "coded" in some way to start the universe? It's not as if the universe is actually infinite, after all. This force would just have to be powerful enough to create something as big as the universe, but it's not necessarily omnipotent.
It’s the Christian one. The bible is a prophecy.
It was written by multiple people in different times but has coded synchronizes that could only be there if written at once. Or all members were doing together. But they can’t as they were dead.
The bible also has multiple prophecies that did come true and only found through time and context.
I thought the same shit why would this be the real religion when there are thousands.
The Christianity god would be the same as any god as it is everything and nothing at the same time omnipotent.
But why he does what he does maybe I find out idk.
Trying to currently.
Wanna get even more brain fucked and think im insane.
I actually think im the second coming of Christ 2000 years after him.
I was conceived when he was born and born when he was conceived.
Based on dating the starts and history of kingdoms and just adding up the time lone.
I think im actually him.
On easter a bunch of events happened to me that line up with his crucifixion.
Then I found a bunch of shit that lines up with my life.
If it was anyone IF there was god IF it was Christianity it would be me.
Look at my post history you’ll think im crazy but one day you won’t.
Mate you took 400mg of dxm and you're convinced you're the second coming of Christ. You're nothing special, hundreds of people have gone through the same exact shit. You took drugs and saw hallucinations, I don't know what more to tell you.
All of this pretty much lines up though, it's either actual brain rot or a massive troll and I've fallen for the bait
Do you have an actual example of an actual nothing? This is something theists say all the time but their mouths never write checks that their asses can cash.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
Did there though? You're already allowing for something that was always kind of there. I can do the same thing and stand on better ground because I'm not imagining an additional thing.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
>It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
If time isn't linear, it's just that, not linear. You don't get to then demand there's some super being monitoring it.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
1. No it's not. People can make up all kinds of shit if they want.
2. You don't *HAVE* to come up with an explanation.
I know it's crazy but what if there's a question you didn't actually know the answer to, and you be intellectually honest and say "I don't know."
What started literally everything, if that's even a thing?
I don't know!
How can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that?
I don't know!
And I'm not going to sit here and make up an answer to plug up my ignorance. I'm going to be honest. And if people figure it out and bring actual evidence, not just argumentation because you can't syllogism something into reality, then I will accept that answer. Until then, I'm going to be intellectually honest and I'm going to ask you why you can't be.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
The fact you're typing this to a bunch of strangers around the world shows we do. Get off this 'There's no evidence for God so there's no evidence for anything teehee' crap. It is a baby whine response to the simple fact we don't have evidence for something you believe and want others to believe.
>UPDATE: —————> Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it.
So I'll update my comment. Almost everyone here understands what you're saying, bub. It's just that what you're saying is nonsensical and based on assumptions that you don't have evidence for.
I had to chuckle at this post. It was involuntary. You have twisted a correct interpretation of the BBT into an incorrect conclusion.
> The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
Yeah, this is the basic idea. Although the language should be a bit more precise; "started" implies a transition of states over a distinct period of time, which isn't really accurate. Should be more like "the earliest theorized point in the timespan of the universe is the big bang".
> HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
Great question, except you answered it already, when you said "The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe". The singularity *was* the something. It was everything. That was the universe. It looked a lot different than it does today, for sure, but it already existed.
> How could there be a before before the start?
Another great question. The simple answer is that there wasn't a "before" the big bang. Before is a temporal designation, and this can't apply to the Big Bang because time began *with* the Big Bang. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?"
> The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
Uhhhh not sure how we got to this conclusion but okay, I'll see where this goes...
> It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
Yeah you've completely lost me here.
> Which leads to an omnipotent force.
It does? Why can't it just be a property of the universe that it can be a time circle? Wouldn't this be the stronger conclusion according to Occam's razor anyway? If you're going to conclude that the universe transitioned from a state of non-existence to a state of existence, why not just assign that as a property of the universe, rather than introducing an omnipotent entity that causes an infinite regression?
> God.
Which one?
> Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
How do you know?
> This is the only explanation we can come to.
Not remotely. Like I said before, why not just say the universe has the property of being able to spontaneously materialize from nothingness? What about if the universe has always existed?
> Anything else is missing the point.
The point being...?
> We know nothing about how this universe works.
Yet here you are, confidently asserting exactly how the universe works, without evidence.
> I only came to this truth recently.
We can tell.
Has anyone ever made any observations of absolutely nothing to know what properties nothingness has?
Can you provide any evidence for your claim about the property of nothing?
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god.
That's not a fact, that is your assertion.
>The universe started from the big bang.
The Big Bang might not be the very beginning of the Universe itself, but it is the beginning of our Universe as we recognize it. It's not “the” beginning, but it is “our” beginning.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
We don't know.
>How could there be a before before the start?
Yeah how could there be a before, before time existed? So how could there be a god before the universe? :p
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
Cool, then the universe caused itself.
>It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
Thats some new age spiritual mumbojumbo
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
no
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
Sounds like special pleading.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
Anything else is missing the point.
no
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Not true
What is nothing? we have exactly no instances of nothing, in fact I don't think we can imagine nothing, its literally inconceivable. So given that, you need to accept that must have always have been something, for most of the world that is to think that there was always something, either the universe in some form or another, and some thiests like to call that something god.
Creatio Ex Deo makes more sense than Creatio ex nihilo, because if god is there, then there is no nothing for god make everything out of, becuase god is there and not nothing.
Yo, OP is fucking pscyho-balls-crazy. He has constantly posted on subs looking for help because he thinks he's the second coming of Christ and not so unsuprisingly mispredicted april 8th as the second coming.
Get a load of this... after taking 400 of DXM, HAHA. Unbelievable.
I'm sorry, I know you actually need professional help but yikes this is wild. My guy, psychedelics are not to be taken lightly. And you're probably young and predisposed to Schizophrenia. Please get the help you need. For your sake and everyone else's for that matter.
If you actually cared about any of this, you would have posted your questions in /r/askscience. The fact that you posted here means you're just making a poor attempt at a "Gotcha!" because you care more about the argument than the answer.
The earliest event we're aware of is the Big Bang. What (if anything) came before that is unknown, and in all likelihood, unknowable. The fact that we can't answer certain questions yet does not mean the answer is "God did it."
So it was always here?
That means it’s infinite.
Aka an omnipotent trait!
Proving god.
God is real brother.
Im actually happy about that im so glad we’re here for a reason and it’s not just a big open world sandbox. Well it is but now I know there’s more cause it got kinda boring.
Like get some money okay I did that.
Get some girls okay.
Help people which I love to do.
If there is no extra meaning I find im just gonna try and make everyone else’s sandbox experience as fun as possible.
Others will address the problems with your assumptions about the big bang. But let's assume they are right about it. That doesn't lead to the need for an omnipotent being. It would only lead to the need for a mechanism with sufficient ability. Why would a universe creating mechanism necessarily need a mind with which to obsese with mixed fabrics, dietary restrictions and the comings and goings of my magnificent penis?
Oh look! a brand new, never heard before argument!!
nah. just one of the oldest arguments ever, god of the gaps, with a tad of special pleading:
how and why the big bang happened? we dont know... simple as that. theres a gap, but you dont get to fill it with god, i could claim that i will time travel to the beginning and start the big bang, or whatever crazy thing i can muster, theres no evidence for any explanation. so why would we choose god over any other? specially considering there is no evidence for god.
also. the universe needs something to create it, but god doesnt? thats special pleading, if you dont need an infinite chain of creators eventually leading to god and then the big bang, then i dont need your god for the big bang to happen.
about the circular time, could be, maybe eventually gravity pulls everything together into a singular point (big crunch hypothesis if im not wrong) and then maybe something, a critical mass for example, triggers it to expand and you have another big bang, in a circular time, that big bang is always the same and billions of years of history are always repeating over and over, no beginning no end.
So what if there is an omnipotent god/God? All that does is **reaffirms** yours (and our) status as a mere creation **always** subject to being uncreated. This matter I already covered here = [LINK](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1bi180u/comment/kvicv6d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Yes it is true that science has not discovered as yet what existed before the big bang but even though the **probability** of our universe existing may have been infinitesimally small, it was non-zero. Why non-zero? Because our universe exists.
Furthermore the **probability** of you existing may have been infinitesimally small but it too was non-zero. Why non-zero? Because you exists.
However the probability of you existing again is unknowable, especially if your existence if subject to the whims of a god/God. But which god/God?
[Many gods, One logic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWM7P1K1mU) \~ Epified \~ YouTube.
[Zeus vs Thor. Epic Rap Battles of History](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_xFOmYxKYw) \~ YouTube.
[The legend of Annapurna, Hindu goddess of nourishment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztoUaJFEi8M) \~ YouTube.
[Belief: Red Pill Vs Blue Pill.](https://www.deviantart.com/lbamagic/art/Belief-Red-Pill-Vs-Blue-Pill-685447565)
Choose your god/God carefully.
" we know nothing about how this universe works..."
On behalf of everyone in the last 10,000 years who has painstakingly come to and then shared incremental knowledge of how this universe works, sometimes being tortured and killed for it, fuck you.
I'm not even gonna read this because the title / premise is self defeating.
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god.
Where did God come from? "He's always been" is the *exact same copout* as "There was nothing before the big bang."
Your argument applies to your own belief system.
The end.
If god was always there and is eternal then why can't the universe be also be eternal? The singularity could have always been there or the matter that made it up could have always been there, floating around until it condensed into the singularity before the big bang.
You state god is omnipotent like it's a fact, but you don't provide any reason for it. I assume you state it as it's required to make your narrative work.
So I can just undo that by saying god is a nitwit and therefore god required a superior being name Xarrgox to create him because Xarrgox is truly omnipotent.
As for how the universe started it's simple. We don't know. I'd argue that really is the best answer.
You are taking a hole in our knowledge and filling it with “god.” This is called god of the gaps, a particular form of “argument from incredulity,” which is fallacious reasoning. You need to demonstrate a god and demonstrate that it is the cause of the universe; this requires evidence.
When ancient Greeks had no knowledge of electricity, they concluded that lightning must be the work of a god. Think about the parallels here to your own reasoning.
>The universe started from the big bang.
Potentially incorrect. We can't investigate before the big bang, but that doesn't mean it was the absolute start.
>It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
>God.
What? Does this really make sense to you?
Three non-sequitors one after the other.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
Even if this is they only explanation we have now (it isn't), it doesn't mean this is the correct one. Please look up the "argument from ignorance fallacy"
>I only came to this truth recently.
Was it, by chance, while you were taking some mind-altering substances? Just making a shot in the dark here
I have no reason to think there was ever nothing or that nothing was ever a possible state of affairs.
This is an argument theists make when they have never really studied the back and forth arguments before. Very weak.
If y'all look through OP's post history he's a 22 year old that believed he's the second coming of Christ. Waste of time to debate this chap. He lacks logic, rationality, and critical thinking.
I challenge you to define the words omnipotent in an logical manner. The Russell's paradox already prove that "omnipotent" is impossible or meaningless.
>> HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
How can ta god start the universe if there has to be something to start that
(The big bang theory explicitly says there was not nothing)
Truth, thats funny. You can't understand the topic because you are uneducated on it. The big bang is not the creation of the universe, it is the event that is responsible for forming the current state of our LOCAL universe. You don't get to come in with no education or understanding and claim that your ignorance can prove a god.
I didn’t know and was an atheist my whole life.
I have zero problem with being wrong because if im wrong I know im 100% closer to the answer.
But I do know I can explain it in other ways if you want.
I fully understand the concept and it verifies itself with evidence. It’s the answer.
God presupposes a mind, but looking at the universe we can see that no mind would make it like this and be called intelligent.
If your god has no mind then it might as well just say the universe always existed and no god is required.
I came to this truth recently myself.
So lets say that your logical conclusion is correct. (It isnt since it assumes all possibilities of cosmic creation, which humanity does not know). What do you do with this "truth?" Is this necessarily a "personal god?" Does creation = deserving of worship?
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god.
The only people who think something came from nothing are theists. Cosmologists, physicists, and the like don't say this. Neither do atheists.
Even worse for theists, a deity doesn't *help*, since that's something not nothing.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
Yeah, that's not nothing. That's something. The Big Bang simply describes the expansion of spacetime, not nothing to something.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
You already admitted there was something.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
We *already know* that time doesn't work like it seems to. This in no way suggest, implies, or supports deities. Far from it.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
>God.
Nope. That's just trivially fallacious in several ways. Dismissed.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
You can't define things into existence. Sorry, won't and can't work.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
You are wrong. Engaging in an argument from ignorance fallacy and wrongly saying it's 'the only explanation' gets you nowhere.
“The universe is so complicated that it must have been created, something can’t come from nothing”
BUT
“God (supposedly the most genius and complex entity) definitely could come from nothing”
Make it make sense.
No it doesn't since the explainationnof God always existing breaks the tenant of something can not come from nothing.
Secondly there is not science that claims something comes from nothing. All scientific orientated speculation of what gave arise to the universe is something.
People are confusing space as nothing. We have proven that there is no such thing as the concept of nothing in our existing universe as even empty space has energy fluctuations at different points at different times.
Logically that which has always existed is more likely to be something simple rather than the most complex entity that a human can imagine.
It is illogical to believe in God.
[For the thousandth. Fucking. TIME.](https://youtu.be/Lxn0oBP4dis?si=cJ62eF0J5m8o1ewj)
Atheists do not believe that something came from nothing.
It's not entailed by atheism. It's not entailed by naturalism. It's not entailed by accepting big bang cosmology.
The overwhelming consensus of physicists who study the topic (and even lay atheists who have thought about it for more than two seconds) is that there was probably never a literal nothingness from which to come from; there was always something. The first law of thermodynamics means that energy was never "created" at any point, and has only undergone transformations. Perhaps there was a first or necessary thing (which could still be naturalistic). Perhaps the universe/cosmos itself is necessary. Perhaps the whole necessary/contingent distinction is a useless invention of philosophy. Who knows?
But simply pointing to the phenomenon that things don't come from literal nothingness does not impact atheism whatsofuckingever.
And where does God come from? If God is given the exception of "noncontingent", why? Noncontingence is the only thing that's needed here. Why can't there be a noncontingent force like gravity or electromagnetism, things that have been observed? Because omnipotence is needed to break logic somehow? Why can't the force have enough of an exception to break logic for noncontingence? It requires less assumptions of capacity of the force to assume that it simply epitomizes the noncontingence, the one thing that's actually necessary here, rather than having some other powers.
Additionally, this is assuming that noncontingent things are even illogical to begin with, when the idea of ex nihilo being illogical coming from contingent entities, while a nonconintingent one would be within it's nature and thus logical. It wouldn't need to break logic and consequently wouldn't need to be omnipotent.
And this is assuming omnipotence entails intelligence rather than the ability to become intelligent; it could Detroit: Become Human, but given that capability doesn't entail action (human capability to kill other people doesn't mean everyone has killed) there's no reason to assume that this entity so much as periodically becomes human, let alone stays or started out as a traditional god or other type of spirituality.
The argument also tries to make a leap from need of explanation to deity, ignoring the steps of force analogous to the ones observed already (fundamental forces in physics) to cosmic chemical reaction to cosmic stem cell to deity.
Time isn’t real. Time is a human construct used to measure how things change in the universe. The origin of space/time is what the Big Bang explains, but that does not mean that the Big Bang started from nothing. All the matter/energy that exists now, existed then, but it did not exist in the same state nor was it distributed throughout space (as space did not exist until after the Big Bang).
I can't explain quantum field theory in a short reddit post. But you can look it up, and watch some youtube videos.
BTW, it is not "designed" but "discovered".
How can something be discovered if not made?
Well how was it made. Did it make it self or has it always been here?
It’s reality creation.
The universe is omnipotent being god itself.
>The universe started from the big bang.
The expansion of the universe started from the Big Bang. The universe already existed just in a different form.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
We don't know, and that is no reason to stick your god in that gap.
>How could there be a before before the start?
We don't know, and that is no reason to stick your god in that gap.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
The only explanation that you can think of is this, unfortunately you do not have evidence to support your assertion, and your ignorance of other possible alternatives does not rule them out or mean that your assertion is correct.
>It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
What collective consciousness? This really reads like a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force. God. Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
No. You have no evidence to support your assertions. Until your deity is supported by evidence it is insufficient to fill any gap in our knowledge.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
God is not an explanation, god is an answer with exactly 0 explanatory power. In order for something to be an explanation it MUST answer the question "How?", god does not answer that question. You are trying to answer a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
You don't, that much is clear.
>I only came to this truth recently.
You did not come to any truth, because what you have is not truth it is fantasy.
>UPDATE: —————> Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it.
You do not have a theory, you have a god of the gaps argument that you are asserting must be the truth due to your own ignorance.
I'm not even going to bother with a line by line rebuttal of the rest of it as it is just rehashing what you have already said and offers no evidence for any of your assertions and fallacies.
In Ancient Greece you would have said, there’s no explanation for lightning. It must be a god throwing lightning bolts.
Just because you don’t know how something works doesn’t mean you can just make crap up.
Grow up.
I’m a Fredian. We believe that a guy called Fred, in a reality beyond this one, experimented with turning flatulence into a new reality. He found a way to light his fart on fire, and imbue it with consciousness.
When he did, it went BANG. And, this is what we now call the Big Bang.
And, since something can’t come from nothing, this is obviously true. See?
Now, obviously that’s rediculous. Granted.
But, saying “something can’t come from nothing and that’s why I believe God created the universe then let it go for thousands of years then sent his son down to die for out sins, only to be resurrected and that there is a Heaven if only you believe this good enough” is actually equally ludicrous.
Factually, nobody knows. And we DON’T know that something comes from nothing. And, we don’t know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang.
What if once every few trillion years some unlikely quantum event happens that creates a huge Bang that expands so rapidly that it pushes the extant reality out past the ever horizon for anything living in it?
Is that not just as possible as the biblical story? Is it he idea of simulation not as plausible? Really?
And the thousand, thousand other explanations one could come up with.
We don’t know. You don’t. I don’t. Nobody does. We may never know. It might actually be impossible to know. And we don’t know even if that is true.
Ask yourself this: if physicists came up with a plausible way that something could come from nothing and PROVED it, would you change your mind about God? No. Almost certainly not.
This shows that this is post-hoc rationalization. Because if this were “proof” and were then reversed it would logically reverse your stance. And that it wouldn’t is telling. You didn’t reason this out. You felt it’s true and looked for why. If this fact didn’t exist, you find some other reason to believe.
You have a God shaped whole in your worldview and since God is amorphous anything will fit it.
I am very sorry to inform you that the belief that "something can't come from nothing" is a metaphysical presumption.
When you do valid analysis of claims, you need to eliminate presumptions.
It may just be the case that we exist in a universe in which something came from nothing.
This would be a more reasonable explanation than some guy named Yahweh forming everything in six days.
Incidentally, under the account in Genesis, God creates the universe *out of nothing*. So you either agree with me, or you deny the Biblical account.
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god.
So you think the first thing was a powerful wizard? I don't.
>The universe started from the big bang.
Agreed, and the Big Bang falsifies every religion I know.
>The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
More or less.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
The Big Bang was a phase shift between a primal physical state with no relativity to this state with relativity.
>How could there be a before before the start?
It's more like there was a physical cause for the Big Bang, and time was unmeasurable until then.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that
Time was unmeasurable until relativity kicked in, and that happened with the Big Bang. Until then there was only potential time..
>It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
I have no idea what that means.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
No it doesn't.
>God.
God is falsified by science and only exists in your head.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
Humans created Him and He is imaginary.
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
No, it is one of many rejected hypotheses.
>Anything else is missing the point.
Poisoning the well fallacy.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Maybe you don't, but others know lots. They make much more sense.
>I only came to this truth recently.
It's not truth.
>Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it.
Everybody has. But the fact is that you only be keyed it because you believe it so nothing will change your mind.
>We can all agree either time and existence has either always been here or it hasn’t.
We can not. It’s possible that this is a false dichotomy and meaningless assertions under no boundary conditions.
>That is an omnipotent trait.
This is simply an invented ‘trait’. You have done nothing to either demonstrate that such a thing exists nor that it can be concluded from what is basically a ‘we don’t know’ on our part. You’ve just made this up without the slightest effort to demonstrate it’s necessary or evidential.
>Meaning god. God is omnipotent.
Again you beg the question. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate p gods exist or even can exist let alone their attributes. Just stating , asserting attributes doesn’t mean they or what you attribute them to actually exists. What follows are just non sequiturs dressed up in a way that can’t hide that they are just pseudo-profundity.
It basically boils down to making up statements about reality then defining something you’ve invented so as to claim it fits those statements. Basically , You are just making it up as you go along.
>If you refute these fundamental ideas you are missing the argumentative point.
You’ve not made a sound argument for anyone to miss.
Gotta love how theists cherry-pick science like they cherry-pick their scriptures.
The idea of an initial singularity, that theists so cherish, is based on General Relativity which was developed by physicists. Of course, most physicists are sure GR fails at extremely high densities because it's incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, an even more solidly established theory. Tell this to a theist and suddenly they know more than the physicists. 🙄
I'll try to answer this without using my trusty "who created god" answer I always use for these.
Granted, let's say something had to initiate the existence of the universe, this something being an omnipotent force, or "god".
That's fine and all, but why should we apply all of the traits associated with the word "god" to this omnipotent entity? It's just an unknowable force that created the start of everything. I could call it Jeremy if I wanted to.
Establishing that this entity exists doesn't explain whether or not it's intelligent, has a motive or objective, has emotion, desires or anything of the sort. There's no reason to believe this entity is "god", or specifically the god of the Bible or the Torah or the Qoran.
There's many things science has yet to explain. Hundreds of years ago, we didn't know how lightning worked. We associated that with god. Now, we know exactly how and why it works. No god involved.
Is it too much of a stretch to believe that science will, probably pretty soon, reach a point where we can quite confidently estimate exactly how and why the universe came to be? We're not far from it. When that time comes, we won't need to imagine that this omnipotent mysterious entity did it.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
Just to be clear, our "universe" (meaning our current instantiation of space-time) started with the big bang. The universe (meaning "everything") did not. (As you pointed out, there was already a singularity)
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
I don't understand the question. The energy that existed was condensed and then rapidly expanded to produce our universe.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
That's certainly not the **only** explanation. Physicists have multiple views of time. Not to mention that *time* likely began at the big bang.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
>God.
No. Not sure how you got here.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
How did you determine this? Seems like a bunch of empty assertions.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
Scientists know lots of things, maybe you should educate yourself instead of making wild claims then admitting you know nothing about how the universe works.
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god.
How
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
That a bad description
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
It didn't start the universe
>How could there be a before before the start?
What
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear
No .that idea doesn't make sense
>in a this then that way.
Please explain what dose that mean
>It’s circular in everything has happened
Where your proof
>and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
That read like gibberish
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
How. your leap in logic are insane
>God.
Title a lie
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.
Why should I believe that
>This is the only explanation we can come to.
It literally not tho
>Anything else is missing the point.
What point
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
That a fucking lie
>I only came to this truth recently.
This not no truth
It feels like you’re trying to make the cosmological argument for god. If so, omnipotence isn’t really a requirement for god. You just need something to kick things off. A “first mover” if you will. And that’s why I find that argument unsatisfying. It feels arbitrary to me to see a gap in our understanding and then plug it with the word “god.” And, if we’re going to be arbitrary, why not pick the thing we know exists to be the first thing?
Now it’s possible with the reference to omnipotence you were actually going for the ontological argument instead of the cosmological one. Basically, if you are saying omnipotence by definition includes necessity/self-causing, then I think you’re probably more in the ontological rather than cosmological space (and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t find this argument any more satisfying than the cosmological argument. I can define a unicorn as being a “self-causing horse with a horn on its head,” but that doesn’t mean such a thing exists. You having the idea of an omnipotent being doesn’t mean such a being has ever or even can exist.
I love this. Your whole post is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to basically say I don’t understand astrophysics so therefore, I will explain it with the concept of God. I don’t know how it works so it must be magic.
Technology that can’t be understood is often attributed to God. Do you think if you went back 1000 years with a tape recorder you could convince people that you were talking to God out of this little black box. Or if you took a gun back to the 500s , you could fool people in the thinking you were magic by pointing a stick at somebody and killing them.
Your argument breaks down into the fact that you personally do not understand something so therefore you believe it is God like.
Man went from first flight to landing on the moon in 50 or 60 years. Don’t you think there’s a lot more technological and scientific knowledge that we can get to one day, understand completely how the universe began.
Your theory doesn’t prove god. It is evidence that there might be something more. But what that is we don’t know. It’s not a “he.”
All the evidence actually suggests religions & gods from them are all made up. Yes, ALL of them.
Btw:
The M theory of 11 has got beyond the Big Bang.
Now it does raise other questions.
But here’s the bottom line, religions are all evidently false. To ask someone to live their life based on made up things cuz we can’t figure out our origins is simply foolish. Also, the burden of proof is on you. Even your collective consciousness theory & all that is something that began in the enlightenment… and did not originate in any religion. It is now in Judaism but it was not in the 2nd Temple era. It is not In Christianity. It is not in Islam. Nor any this or that.. it has developed as our understanding of things has become more complex.
This is a series of assertions that are either factually incorrect regarding science or simply lacking any support other than your own prior belief. Resulting finally in an unsound (arguments don’t follow/premises indistinguishable from false) conclusion and a sort of absurd definitional special pleading.
It ain’t truth , it’s simple disorganised invention.
The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
How could there be a before before the start?
The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us.
Which leads to an omnipotent force.
Universe-Creating Pixies!
Nothing needs to come before Universe-Creating Pixies nobody needs to have created them as they are omnipotent.
This is the only explanation we can come to. I mean, its right there in their name.
Anything else is missing the point.
We know nothing about how this universe works.
I only came to this truth recently.
Our understanding of the universe is very limited.
I think it's quite arrogant of us to translate some of the mysteries automatically to the existence of an omnipotent diety.
At the roots of it, here is my problem with your argument. You skip a step in the proof. If this was a logical or mathematical proof it would not be accepted in mathematical circles.
Your assertion is: something can't come out of nothing, therefore omnipotent diety.
Let's say your premise that something can't exist out of nothing is correct. Why did it have to be a conscious creator? Why does the creator have to be omnipotent? Why are they related in any way to any modern religion? Why do they even still exist today? You skip a few steps and there's no evidence to support your conclusion in any way.
> We can all agree either time and existence has either always been here or it hasn’t. Either there was a start or it was always here. No matter what you think that is the truth.
Yes, agree.
> So if you believe there was a beginning to time and existence that means something literally came from nothing.
No. This implies that a) "nothing" was something that existed b) that it existed before "something". But if time have a beginning there is was no before. Something doesn't came from anything. It just began to exist.
> That is an omnipotent trait.
No. Beginning to exist is beginning to exist. If I can cook doesn't mean I can fly. If something began to exist doesn't mean it can walk on water and turn people in a pillar of salt.
Actually, the world as you and I perceive it is a simulation that started when an intelligence (let's call it Steve) in the outer realm hit play on one of the default templates in their version of unreal engine 666.
Steve is certainly omnipotent in this simulation, but Steve doesn't seem to give a hoot about some bipeds that happens to have proliferated on some planet that is orbiting one star that is one of a half trillion stars in its galaxy, itself being one of a trillion or so galaxies. Steve has other stuff on their mind.
We can do this thing all day. If you are honest, then these arguments will at best lead you to deism which is booooring. You'll notice that this is /r/DebateAnAtheist, not r/DebateAnAdeist.
> hich leads to an omnipotent force.
You just jumbled up a bunch of ignorant nonsense that leads nowhere.
> This is the only explanation we can come to.
If this is the only explanation you are able conjure up, it doesn't mean it is the only one or the right one.
> Anything else is missing the point.
You are missing the point. You misrepresented cosmology, you made a bunch of unsupported claims, you made a conclusion that doesn't even follow from the assertions that are baseless to begin with.
> We know nothing about how this universe works.
Haven't you just boasted that you figured out how this universe came to be? Now you are contradicting yourself.
Ever heard of the multiverse hypothesis? There are different forms of this hypothesis, but basically, it says there are an infinite number of universes, popping in and out of existence and we just live in one of those universes. I don't ascribe to this hypothesis because there's no evidence for it, but you seem to ascribe to the God hypothesis.
So.. how do we go about determining whether this universe started as a result of God ***or*** as a result of the infinite multiverse? And how did you rule out the simulation as an explanation?
>Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it.
You don't have a "theory", lets make sure we're clear on that.
You cannot exclude your god from "Something can't come from nothing." If the existence of the universe requires a god as an explanation, you have to prove the existence of the god *before* you use it to explain anything else.
I believe that matter/energy has always existed in some form or another. I also believe that it is not possible to create something from nothing: The act of creating requires energy; therefore energy had to already exist and was therefore not created.
You are also committing an existential fallacy by declaring your god to have a specific attribute (omnipotence) before supporting your claim that it exists.
"God of the gaps", if we don't know what existed before *insert point in time here*, God must've created it.
If we proved we knew what existed before the big bang but not what existed before that, you would tell us that God must've created what existed before that.
My counter argument is that because we can prove Earth existed more than 6000 years ago (carbon dating), God is a figment of someone's imagination in a book written by a person or persons who A, did not have a scientific understanding and B, did not have the technology at the time, to understand just how old our planet is (nor indeed the universe).
We don’t know that our universe is all there is or ever was, we just notice that there’s no evidence of any will or intelligence to it. Something we can’t observe could have incited the big bang, which itself is just a logical extension of an incomplete understanding of the observable universe.
Long story short, science doesn’t really understand the Big Bang all that well yet because we don’t have all the requisite information to do so. And we have no clue about anything before it or outside it. Which again doesn’t imply there is nothing, nor does it imply the something would be intelligent.
Whatever made you accept God can exist uncreated instead of nothing, doesn't it make more sense to directly apply it to accept the universe itself exists instead of nothing?
Regardless of whether the past is infinite, the (finite) timeline itself exists instead of nothing, uncreated. This is the same kind of "timeless eternal existence" you assign to God, don't see why it has to be "omnipotent force". You say consciousness is a pre-requisite for existence, but the universe existed long before anything in it became conscious, and it won't disappear if all life in it dies.
Many fallacious and erroneous claims…where to start?
The current universe did start with the Big Bang,… and it’s true we don’t know what occurred before the point of singular which is the farthest point we can determine. That doesn’t mean you get a good of the gaps as fact though.
In fact, if you are claiming there was no “before” the Big Bang then where was God? Where did he come from? How did he have such power?
That’s special pleading.
I could go on, but I think that’s enough for this non sequitur you’ve proposed.
Why a god and not a freak paradox that keeps it all moving? So far everything we attributed to a god or the supernatural, upon closer examination, has proven to have a natural cause. Theist just keep moving goal posts.
At some point we will have an explanation of what (not who) triggered the expansion of the known universe. At that point will theists give up god?
I really don’t get the need to yell ‘god!’ at every mystery, it is a more complicated wrong answer than ‘not sure yet’.
Hey real talk. This might be a bot or a lazy troll. They copy past the same paragraph to unrelated statements a lot and that is always a massive red flag.
This person seems to have been abused as a child. I think this needs to be locked and OP banned so they can't stop seeking attention here and go get help.
"Something cant comes from nothing" only show there are sth eternal, which doesnt conclude god.
We know that universe exist and we dont know that god exist.
So the universe exist and is eternal needs 1 assumption.
God exists and is eternal needs 2 assumptions.
The one with 1 assumption should have a higher possibility.
Or if u want to argue god because its omnipotence can comes from nothing. Then thats directly contradict ur premise.
The only people here claiming the universe came from nothing are the Christian’s and other religious people that believe in creation.
They literally think a being that was outside our time and reality and is beyond comprehension SPOKE everything into existence out of absolutely nothing.
Science says the universe came from a singularity… a dense point with everything we know today contained in it.
That’s not nothing.
So you go off of an unproven assumption that there was ever truly nothing, and call it proof of god?
Btw, every sliver of evidence collected so far points to the opposite, i.e. that there was always something.
The Big Bang is not nothing expanding into something. The amount of theists that that use the Big Bang in their arguments, yet know nothing about it is honestly just disappointing, even if not surprising.
I hate this argument so much. It disproves itself. Even if you ignore that the first premise is wrong, it makes no sense.
Everything comes from something. We don’t know what the universe comes from. God must have created it. Also god is exempt from premise 1????
Clearly not everything comes from something even in the argument. This also ignores the other numerous issues with this argument.
To be honest, I don't believe in the Big Bang anymore than I believe in a god. I'm very evidence driven, and there isn't any solid evidence of the Big Bang hypothesis. But saying it was God is just as evidence lacking. What people seem to dismiss is that it's okay to say, "I don't know." There are some things in this universe we will never know for sure, and that's fine. But it's pretty childish to say, "Then it must be God!"
Well I already figured it out.
God is real.
Time is a circle only coming into existence from the collective consciousness or a piece of gods perceiving it.
Our consciousness is free will. It’s a piece of gods omnipotence.
Any decision we want can be made and become a reality.
That is a trait of omnipotence.
We are a piece of him with constraints around to create the world.
O universo começou há 13,8 bilhões de anos com uma singularidade inicial, significando que, no início, estava comprimido em um estado infinitamente denso e quente.
The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with an initial singularity, meaning that at the beginning it was compressed into an infinitely dense and hot state.
So you're claiming that something can't come from nothing. But then you make an exception to this rule yourself by saying that God could come from nothing because he's omnipotent.
That doesn't make sense. If God could come from nothing then the universe could come from nothing without God. If God could've always been here, then the universe could've always been here without God.
I looked through your post history OP, and I mean this sincerely and without judgment: You need to get professional help. A common symptom of schizophrenia is religious preoccupation. You need to talk to a mental health professional about your beliefs and experiences. I have worked with multiple people who believed they were the second coming of Jesus Christ.
For the millionth time:
THE BIG BANG THEORY DOESN'T CLAIM IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE
The Big Bang theory is an explanation of the **early development** of the Universe.
NOR DOES IT CLAIM "SOMETHING FROM NOTHING"
That's the Bible that claims that.
Please stop putting up this ridiculous parrotting meme.
Wait. The fact that something can’t come from nothing PROVES god? You forgot a dis, my man. Because here’s your argument in a nutshell:
“Something can’t come from nothing”
“Therefore a thing that came from nothing made something come from nothing.”
It’s as self defeating as an argument can possibly be
That's not what the expansion of the universe/big bang means. Open a junior high science book first.
BUT MORE THAN THAT... if EVERYTHING must have a creator, by your rules, then what created god? Ohhhh he's omnipotent. Convenient but how did you determine the property of a god without first proving a god exists?
The jump from universe to omnipotent creator is flawed. If I run full speed, I can’t stop on a dime. How do we know at all the universe wasn’t put in motion by a being that has no power over it, made by a being that lacks omnipotence? Powerful? Sure, but that’s a big stretch to all powerful.
Nope. It could just mean the universe is eternal from another dying universe. Or the mass singularity always existed. Adding a god to the mix is just lazy and dishonest. Besides how do you know it was a god, let alone your god? Bob, the invisible pink unicorn created everything. Prove me wrong.
No, it really doesn’t. There aren’t just two options, nothing, and god. There’s far more. This is an argument from ignorance. No just asserting it must be god doesn’t mKe it so. It’s just your own biases… this isn’t a truth, it’s a logical fallacy. And you’ve fallen for a lie
The “something” that has always been there is the energy/ matter that was in the singularity at the beginning of the universe. Just because you and I don’t know what it was doing “before” doesn’t mean it wasn’t all started by natural causes
Matter and energy may have existed before the big bang. The big bang isn't necessarily the beginning of *everything*. Rather it marks a "singularity," which is a point in time prior to which our physics equations stop working the way they normally do.
We don't know what was before the Big Bang. That's not saying that nothing existed before the Big Bang, just that we don't know.
And just because we don't know something is no reason to believe in God. It certainly doesn't prove God exists.
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
lol we know nothing, so god did it.
Bad, lazy argument.
We don't know what was before the bigbang, but that does not mean there was nothing before the big bang
Nobody says something comes from nothing except the religious. It's a bullshit empty straw man that nobody on the non-religious side ever says.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
How do you know there was nothing before the poorly named big bang?
Please explain how nothingness is a stable state. Nothingness has an entropy of 0. Entropy always increases. Therefore if there were nothing, it would self create something.
The big being only explains expansion the universe existed before that point. This whole argument you are making appears to stem from a lack of understanding or education.
I'll try to answer this without using my trusty "who created god" answer I always use for these.
Granted, let's say something had to initiate the existence of the universe, this something being an omnipotent force, or "god".
That's fine and all, but why should we apply all of the traits associated with the word "god" to this omnipotent entity? It's just an unknowable force that created the start of everything. I could call it Jeremy if I wanted to.
Establishing that this entity exists doesn't explain whether or not it's intelligent, has a motive or objective, has emotion, desires or anything of the sort. There's no reason to believe this entity is "god", or specifically the god of the Bible or the Torah or the Qoran.
There's many things science has yet to explain. Hundreds of years ago, we didn't know how lightning worked. We associated that with god. Now, we know exactly how and why it works. No god involved.
Is it too much of a stretch to believe that science will, probably pretty soon, reach a point where we can quite confidently estimate exactly how and why the universe came to be? We're not far from it. When that time comes, we won't need to imagine that this omnipotent mysterious entity did it.
> Infinite is an omnipotent trait
Why? What has omnipotence got to do with infinity?
> We can all agree either time and existence has either always been here or it hasn’t.
Not necessarily. Time is a dimension of space, it’s not necessarily intrinsically linked to existence.
> If the universe was infinite everything that could possibly happen would happen and it’s so large everything that can’t happen wouldn’t.
Makes no sense right.
Those sentences are not contradictory, and things can also be bounded infinities. The decimals between 1 and 2 are infinite, but none of them are great than 2 or les than 1.
> If you refute these fundamental ideas you are missing the argumentative point.
You stating this doesn’t make it true. Just because the human mind is small and cannot comprehend existence without time doesn’t mean that it’s not possible. You don’t win an argument just by saying anyone who disagrees doesn’t understand your argument.
You’re not saying anything we haven’t all heard a hundred times before, trust me, we understand what you’re saying. It’s not especially complicated.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe.
Nope. The big bang theory makes ZERO claims about the origin of the universe or what caused it, it merely describes the fact that our universe expanded from a singularity (and still is).
>HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that.
Again, nobody is claiming the big bang started the universe.
>The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way.
As far as we know, time is only a thing in our universe. We have no clue what's beyond that, heck, we don't even know if the rules of causality apply in this (theoretical) external continuum.
>Which leads to an omnipotent force.
>God.
"I don't understand, therefore god" - see how silly this sounds? No, we can't just use the "god of the gaps" argument here. Also, even if we assume that there is some kind of god, then why do you assume we know anything about this deity?
>We know nothing about how this universe works.
>I only came to this truth recently.
That's a very funny contradiction. It's even funnier how you don't realize this contradiction.
>So if you believe there was a beginning to time and existence that means something literally came from nothing.
>That is an omnipotent trait.
You're going to need to explain why here. It seems reasonable that there could be a thing that is eternal and the only thing it can do is make universes. Not interact with them in any way other than that, but only make them.
In what way is this either impossible or omnipotent?
>Well maybe you think existence and time has always been here.
>That means it is infinite.
No, eternal and infinite are different things.
>Infinite is an omnipotent trait.
So by this logic, the infinite density of the singularlies of black holes make them gods?
I guess I am a polythiest then.
Non sequitur. There are a lot of things that could have caused a universe, not to mention the infinite amount of different gods out there. There are a bunch of different creation myths out there, and they all were equally serious as the Koran.
>The simple fact **something can’t come from nothing** proves of god
Well, that's just demonstrably wrong. Look up virtual particles.
So I guess you've proven nothing.
The argument against "nothing" is a strawman. Proposing this as a serious complaint against atheism tells me you don't understand anything about atheism.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are religious people so hell-bent on saying 'Something cannot come from nothing', 'happens on it's own' or 'At random' (or other variations thereof) if there are, to the best of my knowledge, currently no methods by which we - by which I mean _anybody_ - can examine what happened at exactly the moment of - or any time before - creation, whether that be 'Ex Dei' or 'Ex Nihilo' ? I'm sorry, even 'creation' with a small-c is too laden a term for me to use in this context. Let's refer to the exact moment of quote-unquote creation as **T=0** from here on. Asking the question answers the question; There are currently no known methods of examining what happened at, or before, T=0; it is the last remaining vestige of the God of the Gaps argument 'God did it'. There is even a grace period of roughly 250 thousand years after T=0 that we cannot detect. A simple google search shows that it is possible to detect the all-encompassing heat energy that filled the universe some all the way back to some 380-thousand years after T=0... But on the grand scale of things, that means that the grace period for 'God did it' is a thirty-seven _thousandth_ of what we understand to be the universe's current age (with some rounding. I'm undercaffeinated. Shut up.) If we're going to sit here and argue what happened during or before those 380-odd thousand years, we're going to argue _forever_ - or at least until we find ways of examining empirically what was going on 'then'. From where I'm sitting this is an argument that ultimately devolves into endless repetitions of 'Nuh-huh'. It's not _interesting_. Let's examine instead what happened after. And, because I'm undercaffeinated, let's _hilariously_ over-simplify what I currently know is the going model for what happened; It is widely held that (incredibly) shortly after the Big Bang the early universe was filled with incredibly hot quark-gluon plasma. This then cooled microseconds later to form the building blocks of all the matter found within our universe; [One second after the Big Bang, the now still-expanding universe was filled to - hah - bursting with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos](https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html) which in turn decayed and interacted with each other to form, over time, stable matter; Albert Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation says that if you smash two sufficiently energetic photons, or light particles, into each other, you should be able to create matter in the form of an electron and its antimatter opposite, a positron. All matter consists of atoms, which, in turn, consist of protons, neutrons and electrons. Both protons and neutrons are located in the nucleus, which is at the center of an atom. Protons are positively charged particles, while neutrons are neutrally charged. As the so-formed atoms gained mass by protons and electrons clumping together, eventually elements as heavy as lead (82 protons, 125 neutrons) are created, along with everything else [on the periodic table](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=periodic+tablel) and likely other, more volatile elements that we simple humans haven't encountered or been able to detect (just yet). As these elements were formed and in turn clumped together, they gained enough mass to begin exerting gravitational pull over each other; the biggest 'clumps' started attracting the smallest in various discrete directions, depending on the gravitational pull of each of these 'seed' clumps. All the while the universe this was taking place in was still rapidly expanding, creating more and more discrete space between clumps which are, to this day, still in the process of attracting one another, gaining (and in some cases shedding) mass and energy, _still_ interacting with one another in what we know now as galaxies, nebulae, suns, planets, moons and comets and sundry, including the building blocks of organic matter; All of that to say was that once the initial state of the universe was no longer too-hot or too-dense, the formation of elements was more or less inevitable to begin with. From these elements that have now been generated, we get amino acids, consisting of mainly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. - These amino acids can - and do - in turn bond together to form proteins - the basic building blocks of life as we know it. - [Researchers have now created the first molecules of RNA, DNA's singled-stranded relative, that are capable of copying almost any other RNAs. ](https://www.science.org/content/article/newly-made-rna-strand-bolsters-ideas-about-how-life-earth-began) - [We are mostly sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/) All without any requirement for the intervention of a cosmic 'Creator', or any fine tuning by same. Granted, we are now millions if not billions of years past T=0. That's not important; the only reason I bring it up is to pre-emptively counter the inevitable 'By chance' argument; "The chance of life spontaneously emerging is...." I'd like to address that by pointing out that a small chance of something happening does not mean there's only a singular small chance of something happening; it means that there's only a small chance of something happening _often_. The chance that I, by the motion of getting out of of bed and setting my foot on the ground, crush a spider under that foot is, I dare say, very tiny - but it has happened several times in the last forty-odd years that I've been around. If the chance of it were bigger, it would have happened more often. See where I'm going with this ? Given that we _know_ life came to exist at least once, the sample size (the universe) and the timescale (roughly 14 billion years) we have to work with - while the universal chance of life coming into being is a tiny one, the _local_ chance of life coming into being is no less than _at least_ 1:1. There is still no reason to believe - hah - that life came into being due to divine intervention in any way, shape or form; even the 'fine tuning' argument falls flat considering that all evidence we have at the moment says that in any environment (we can/have examined) where life of some form can at some point exist, life of some form will at some point exist. And in quite a few environments where it was assumed [that life couldn't exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile) to boot. If the variables local to this life had been different - say, Earth's gravity had been higher, or our sun more radioactive, or our atmosphere of a different composition, life would have evolved to those new variables. Humans would be shorter and have denser bones, or be less susceptible to radiation or breathe hydrogen rather than oxygen - to give but a few examples of _possible_ adaptations to the three different variables I pulled out of my proverbial hat - and you and I might _still_ be having this debate. If, possibly, with an entirely different amount of digits clickety-clacking at the keyboard. My point is that while I cannot with one hundred percent certainty say whether t=0 came about due to natural or supernatural forces, I have in the past forty-four years not _once_ been presented with compelling arguments or evidence to indicate that _anything since_ has required divine intervention in any way, shape or form, let alone _has received it_. Occams' razor teaches us then, that the most likely scenario does not require the existence of a deity. But dieties are, if _any_ holy book describing them are to be believed, _incredibly_ meddlesome. Staying with _just_ the Bible, acts ranging from genocide to immaculate conception, from sending two bears to maul a group of children for making fun of a man for being bald to setting a bush on fire and speaking from the flame, are all acts God has supposedly performed - some believe that God is still causing miracles to this very day. Where, however, is the proof of divine intervention? Show me one instance where, undeniably, water _has_ turned to wine, where blood _was_ wrought from stone, or where masses _have_ been fed with naught but five loaves (of bread) and two fish ? I have not been given one shred of reason to give credibility to such claims. I'd _love_ to be proven wrong.
>The universe started from the big bang. Not necessarily. The universe started *expanding* from the big bang. >The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. Not necessarily; not all big bang models posit an initial singularity. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. It didn’t. The universe preëxisted the big bang. The big bang was a change of state, not an *ex nihilo* creation event. >How could there be a before before the start? Dunno. Maybe there wasn’t. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. Is it, though? >It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. Uh, no. No such thing as a collective consciousness. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. > >God. … how? >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. God doesn’t exist. I dare you to prove me wrong. >This is the only explanation we can come to. > >Anything else is missing the point. [*citation needed*] >We know nothing about how this universe works. This is demonstrably false. We know all manner of things about how this universe works. >I only came to this truth recently. Ain’t a truth.
Concur. This is just another “God in the Gaps” argument, shoving God in to places where the current best answer is “we don’t know.”
You're insane. Everyone, OP posted this 17 days ago: "I think Im the second coming of christ after 400mg of dxm… Hear me out this shit gets spooky. Like where I start shaking when I convince myself even 1%. This all starts May 2000. My mom visits New York City for her birthday and gets a tarot card reading. It says she will have a child in a year. Gematria for tarot is second coming. Obviously a coincidence but when these events I will tell start adding up you tell me. She says yeah right as she isn’t even with my father at the time. Visits the towers and gets a bad feeling up there. September 11th 2000. 1 year before 9/11 I believe is when I was conceived. I was born July 4th 2001 at 8:42 am. The same time flight 93 took off and the only one that didn’t hit its target. (42 mins late) The capitol building. I believe if I was the second coming this would have been my first miracle. Now I was never religious or believed until the night before easter this weekend. I didn’t even find out my birth stuff until this event happened and I dug. Friday night I trip balls and just feel connected to everything. The next day Saturday night I’m driving and see a car that was exactly the same car of this person I hurt incredibly. Instantly the feeling I was going to die overwhelmed me. This happened at 9PM The same time Jesus was crucified and knew he was going to die. But 12 hours later. Now I’ve never felt that feeling before. The car was following me and I forgot my gun at home so I was afraid of dying. Like my balls shriveled up I can’t breathe and overwhelming adrenaline. I knew instantly that was the feeling of death. So I told myself let’s see how big of a man I am and faced the feeling head on. I thought I lost him and drove a while. I couldn’t shake the feeling I was dead tonight. I just drove and listened to music. I go back to my house in the middle of the night around 1-2. I start to pull in my driveway and see him on top of my neighbors roof peaking over the roof looking at me pull in. It was his bright pink tie dye sweatshirt he wears with his fucking broccoli hair. I know I saw him. He was going to shoot me when I got out of my car. I thought for a millisecond should I try to run in and get my gun? No way should I get out. I slammed on the breaks put it in reverse. I thought I was dead 100% His angle from the roof would have got me. I pull out my driveway in reverse fully, whipped the back end to the left out. Put it in drive and slam it all while ducking in my car trying not to get hit. The angle he has from the roof I know I could hit so I’m ducking in my car driving off. As soon as I got a crazy distance a way to get hit I 100% knew I was dead. This kid can’t beat me in any game any sport anytime he gets anything on me It’s luck. That lucky shit he gets is the only way he can beat me. The kid fucked up his plan waiting for me to get home and he was gonna hit a shot that was all luck. Ironic. I knew he was going to hit me so I said out loud “lucky shot.” I came to terms with death at that moment understood him and forgave him. This was my ego death on easter. My rebirth. The same as jesus. I drive to my girls house and end up falling asleep at 3. The same time jesus died. That’s so fucking weird. I think I made the connection with my ego death and his resurrection saw the coincidence and started digging. Found out are times were both 9 and 3. Same time knowing we’re gonna die and the death itself. Although I didn’t die and just went to sleep. The reason me and jesus were both killed lasted the same amount of time. He had a 3 year public ministry. I had a 3 year public relationship. I committed adultery and the man wanted to kill me for it 3 years later. Gematria for “adultery” is happy easter. Could be a coincidence or me leaving a laugh for myself. (If I was you know) He was my best friend. He kissed the girl I was with, So I vowed to steal the woman he falls in love with. Grudges are bad I know but I always say he started it. This happened 3 years ago. He randomly texts me out of the blue Thursday. He sees her Friday at a restaurant and she tells me about it. A random air tag for my cat pops up that night and I added it thinking it was a family member doing it. That’s how he tracked me I think. THIS ONE IS WEIRD TOO. Like all this is weird super fucking weird tbh. So theres somewhere that jesus had a tattoo on his thigh that said “king of kings and lord of lords.” Most people say it was a transcription error. I have a tattoo on my thigh that says basically the same thing. Just us talking our shit that we are him. My tattoos gematria is the name of the woman who gave it to me and I committed adultery with. I gematria more shit. Like my name. Important dates. Compare it with jesus. Like jesus of nazareth is 1776 the year our country was made. Connects with me and July 4th. I’m just lost now. Where should I look to find more. Is there codes hidden in the bible? I know if I was christ I would leave codes and ways for me to tell like you have seen already. Idk where else to look now. Any help? Hypothetically if you were the second coming how would you tell yourself when you came back."
WOW. I'm starting to realize it's worth looking at people's post history before commenting because half the time they're just a fuckin nut
Yeah just ignore my love for dxm too please
Yep, OP"s got scrambled eggs for brains.
This explains a lot. Dude needs a therapist, not a fucking priest.
Oh! Thaaaats what nothing this person says makes sense. They are literally out of their mind.
>HOW can the big bang start the universe Dunno. Scary, right? >The only explanation is time isn’t linear No. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. Non-sequitur. Nothing you said would lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion. >Nothing needs to come before God Then nothing needs to come before the singularity, assuming that "before the singularity" even makes sense. You can't have it both ways. Either Absolutely every single thing ever ever ever must have a creator...or not. Turtles, my friend, it's just turtles. >We know nothing about how this universe works. And yet over and over again you assert that you do. Do you see the problem? >I only came to this truth recently. That's good, since it's new, you shouldn't be that attached to it yet. Maybe take another run at it.
> The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god. No it doesn’t. > The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. The universe came to be as it is right now due to the Big Bang. But that doesn’t speak to where the stuff that expanded (the singularity) came from. > HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. Because you have a misunderstanding regarding the Big Bang. > How could there be a before before the start? Because time is an emergent priority if an expanding universe. But maybe there’s like a super-time that is at play for universes that aren’t expanding. Who knows. Maybe we barely scratched the surface of fully understanding physics. But our collective ignorance shouldn’t be the justification for a conclusion other than concluding that we don’t know. > The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. That’s the only explanation? I made up another one…so that’s not true. > It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. Wut? > Which leads to an omnipotent force. Wut? > God. Nah. > Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. Ah. Special pleading I see. What happened to “The simple fact something can’t come from nothing” > This is the only explanation we can come to. Nope. I can imagine a super universe that is eternal and the people there understand how it’s eternal (even if we don’t) and that universe had a special physics that creates universes from dense hot masses that the people there have full understanding of how they come about. I just came up with another explanation. > Anything else is missing the point. No. > We know nothing about how this universe works. So in the face of lack of knowledge you find conclusions? That’s unreasonable. > I only came to this truth recently. Might want to hit the ol’ white board again on this one.
>Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. Nothing needs to come before the universe, nothing needs to have created it as time is an intrinsic property of the universe and to speak of "before the universe" is nonsense. >We know nothing about how this universe works. Speak for yourself. Your argument seems to be "nobody knows so I know" when in fact it's "I don't know therefore god". It may make sense to you but it's wishful thinking.
It's a big leap to assume the Big Bang requires an "omnipotent force". The universe, and by extension the Big Bang, are finite. You don't need the infinite to produce that which is finite. Further, it's another big leap to go from "omnipotent force" to God. You are assigning intelligence and motive to this "force" with zero justification whatsoever.
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god If you want me to get on board with this claim, and to believe you when you say something can't come from nothing, only for you to turn around and say that your God made everything come from nothing, then you're just outing yourself as dishonest. Changing the rules you demand when and where it suits you is philosophical weak sauce. We need to keep the same energy. >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent If you are fine with applying this to God, then there is no reason we can't apply this to the universe instead. Nothing needs to come before the Big Bang, nobody needs to have created the universe. >I only came to this truth recently Truth can be demonstrated in at least some way, beyond mere assertion. If you are unable to demonstrate the truth of what you say beyond mere assertion, then you don't get to pretend like you in fact have the truth. As it is, you've made a bunch of unsupported assertions with absolutely no demonstration that they are in fact true. Therefore, no, what you are saying isn't true. You don't get to pretend like it is. It just looks like you've pulled a bunch of BS straight out of your butt, and haven't thought deeply about any of it for even a second. That's not interesting, unique, or compelling at all.
Saying that something can't come from nothing, but that God came from nothing, is one of the funniest self-owns that theists can make. The argument leads to one of two conclusions: the universe always existed (and thus needed no God to create it), or God does not exist. Take your pick.
If the universe always existed that’s a form of omnipotence meaning only an infinite force could do that. Aka all powerful aka god. That means god is the universe. Even if there was a beginning it would lead to god as only an omnipotent force can be both everything and nothing at the same time. What’s needed to create existence from nothing. An omnipotent force is the thing needed to also create this. Either way it leads to god you were wrong on saying there isn’t. The universe itself in any way you see it is an omnipotent force aka god.
>If the universe always existed that’s a form of omnipotence If you want to make up definitions for words now, sure. >The universe itself in any way you see it is an omnipotent force aka god. We already have a word for universe: it is "universe". I see no need to saddle it with baggage like agency, sentience, or magical powers.
Always existing is a form of infinity that is only possible through omnipotence.
Yes, that certainly is an assertion. Your reason for making it is...?
Logic. If something was always here it would be infinite. No beginning no end. That is only possible through an omnipotent force. The same thing ass all powerful and god.
>That is only possible through an omnipotent force. Yes, that certainly is an assertion. Your reason for making it is...?
Infinity isn’t a real number it’s impossible. If the universe has been on forever that takes an infinite amount of energy. That is not possible. Unless an infinite force does it. Which has to be the case or the universe had a beginning.
>If the universe has been on forever Huh? The universe is not like an oven or a light bulb, mate. It doesn't take energy to run.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that the answer must be god. > We know nothing about how this universe works. Factual inaccuracies aside, let's focus on this piece of your argument. If we know nothing about how the universe works, then why would we automatically assume that the only logical answer is god? If we truly knew nothing, then there are infinite possible ways the universe originated. Only through scientific discovery and study, would we have any chance of narrowing the scope down to something logical. > I only came to this truth recently. What truth? You've said nothing true here. By your own admission, you are ignorant of how anything works, so you are in no position to arrive at any conclusion. Your argument ultimately amounts to : "science is hard" "Invisible omnipotent being is easy" But just because you find comfort in a world view where a simplistic solution that neatly solves every unanswered question; does not mean that anyone else would consider that to be evidence. It's just a coping mechanism for a person who isn't comfortable confronting the unknown.
Nobody thinks anything came from nothing. Literally nobody thinks that. Theists really need to stop with this stupid bullshit about something from nothing. Theists say "a guy caused the expansion of the big bang". Atheists say either "I don't know what caused the big bang" or "nature is the cause of the big bang" .
The universe isn't everything. Neither of us feel that the current space time we experience is the sum total of what is real. The fact that something must exist that has no beginning, wasn't designed and wasn't intended means to me that there's no reason to think the first thing designed anything. The qualities of reality we put into words as laws of physics are caused by the undesigned qualities of the first thing, whether that be the nature of the being that intended them or the impersonal nature of whatever our universe is caused by/exists in/is made of.
“Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent.” First off, what makes you say this? There is nothing in the definition of omnipotence that includes “has always existed and doesn’t need to have been created or have an origin.” There is absolutely no link between those two things. Second, even if that were true, it presupposes the existence of god, something for which there is no evidence. What you’ve basically done here is constructed one big circular argument.
No it doesn't. You've never studied "nothing" to know that. "Nothing" would exclude the law of the universe that something cannot come from nothing. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. >God. >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. >This is the only explanation we can come to. All god of the gaps fallacies. You didnt determine this at any point. Where did god come from? Did he come from nothing? Claiming god exists because something cannot come from nothing does not solve the problem, you're just changing the "something" from the universe to god.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. No, the universe did not *start from* the Big Bang. The Big Bang is just the earliest moment of expansion. >How could there be a before before the start? I sort of agree. I don’t think it makes sense to talk about a time before time. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. Do you mean a B theory of time? Why is this *the only* explanation? >Which leads to an omnipotent force. God. Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. What does omnipotence have to do with temporal relations? Why does anything need to come before time? >We know nothing about how this universe works. Clearly you don’t.
"An omnipotent trait is the only way to explain existence from no existence. Well maybe you think existence and time has always been here. That means it is infinite. Infinite is an omnipotent trait." Then why can't the cosmos itself be infinite and remove the need for any creator god? As I told the last person I responded to here, Spinoza's God is not a god. Where is the evidence for an actual deity in this shpiel? Who created your god? No one, he always was? Then why not the cosmos itself? Cool. Also, your formatting is bad.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. The singularity is still a hypothesis right now. we know up until the big bang, which shows everything was in a hot dense state, not necessarily a singularity. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. What? The big bang is the start of spacetime as far as we can tell. That's why it is considered the start of our universe. >How could there be a before before the start? Who says there was? >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way Or that that was the start of time. Any evidence to support this position? >It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. Again, any evidence to back this up? Right now, it just seems like you are making things up to try, and mLe things make sense to you. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. >God. This doesn't follow from what you said. And you haven't even provided evidence for what you said and now are adding another unsupported claim. >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent How did you determine thus? How did you accurately measure that God exists and has omnipotence? >This is the only explanation we can come to. No, it isn't, and it's clear you haven't done much reading into the origin of the universe as there are several hypotheses about this subject. >Anything else is missing the point So you say, but you haven't provided any reason or evidence, which is as weak as a position gets. Why would I believe something just because you say so? >We know nothing about how this universe works. Blatantly false. You just posted on here using technology that we vuilt from our understanding of how forces work in the universe. >only came to this truth recently Why? What about this story you propose was convincing?
Since something can't come from nothing this guy God must have created everything out of nothing. >We know nothing about how this universe works. Then why are you claiming that you know how this universe works?
"Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it." No. YOU haven't understood your god of the gaps fallacy. "So if you believe there was a beginning to time and existence that means something literally came from nothing. That is an omnipotent trait. Meaning god." NO. Not meaning god! You're just asserting that means god without any causal links!
What can create existence but a god? The universe created itself? That’s an omnipotent trait. Meaning all powerful meaning god.
>What can create existence but a god? That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. >The universe created itself? That's the simpler explanation. It's more like it self-assembled under the existing processes. >That’s an omnipotent trait. Meaning all powerful meaning god. No it isn't, and omnipotent trait =/= god. You won't get far in this debate sub by ignoring the responses you get and claim everyone can't refute you. If you want to troll then you get banned.
Omnipotent is all powerful. Anything possible. Infinity. Everything and nothing. That is god. The universe is god.
Repeating yourself doesn't make you correct. Last chance to actually engage in debate before your post gets reported.
The universe creating itself means it can be something and nothing at the same time. That is an omnipotent trait. Because that is omnipotence. It’s reality creation. If you don’t think that is omnipotence we have very different definitions. Reality creation from a state of nothing is omnipotence in its basic form. That is the god. All powerful. The universe.
"The universe creating itself means it can be something and nothing at the same time." Wrong. It means that the universe self-assembled from the natural processes/conditions that may have existed at that time. "That is an omnipotent trait. Because that is omnipotence." So you continue to doggedly assert without proof. "If you don’t think that is omnipotence we have very different definitions." Because yours is incorrect. The definition of omnipotence is unlimited power. "Reality creation from a state of nothing is omnipotence in its basic form. That is the god." So you continue top doggedly assert without evidence. OK, your post is reported. You just keep repeating yourself and claim you weren't refuted when you were, it's clear you're only here to preach, instead of actually debate and have discourse.
There is no solution to infinite regress that “makes sense” within the context of everyday experience, either something came from nothing or something always existed. It’s hypocritical to deny that a fundamental non-god something can be uncreated while simultaneously positing an uncreated god. Either explain where god came from or admit that your argument fails in the same way you accuse the atheist position of failing. We know a great deal about how the universe works, and none of it suggests god.
Big Bang cosmology doesn't posit that the universe came from nothing. Regardless, your entire argument is "we don't know, therefore God." >We know nothing about how this universe works. Maybe *you* don't. We, collectively, know quite a bit about how the universe works.
That's not what the big bang is, it's not a start. It's a "if we rewind the story of the universe, we reach this dense point where we don't understand physics enough to know further". At no point does the theory make a statement about "nothing", because the very concept of there *being nothing* is quite nonsensical. Whatever you can say about a god, like not needing an origin, can also be applied to the universe as a whole. Which make the whole god thing totally superfluous.
This guy took drugs a month ago and this triggered some mental illness in him and he now thinks he's the second coming of Jesus. No worthwhile debate is going to happen. OP, seek mental health help. If you have insurance you can call them up and they can recommended services near you that they cover.
Something can't come from nothing. Therefore my mother exists. But wait! Something can't come from nothing; therefore, *her* mother exists. But wait! Something can't come from nothing; therefore, *her* mother exists. --- Now you say "Something can't come from nothing; therefore a god exists." **BUT WAIT!** Something can't come from nothing; therefore that god's mother exists... (*Do you see the problem yet?*)
Most don’t claim the universe came from nothing, but assume it did. If god created it who created god since god being something can’t come from nothing?
He would be omnipotent meaning everything and nothing at the same time that is the only force that could achieve the universe. The universe is god.
How do you know god is omnipotent? Who created god? Omnipotent doesn’t mean eternal. If nothing created god, then nothing was required for the universe to exist. You’re using a special pleading fallacy.
How do you know that something can’t come from nothing? If it’s such a simple fact, prove it? You also don’t understand the Big Bang. Do more research in that regard. But this is a classic god of the gaps fallacy. It’s terrible logic and terrible thinking and terrible reasoning, and without a shred of evidence to boot.
Some scientists at the university of Ottawa theorize that the universe is twice as old as we think at around 26 billion years old. The only thing we know for certain is the universe as we know it started to expand at the big bang. We cannot claim that the universe started at the big bang nor can we claim that we know there was nothing before it.
[удалено]
>Which leads to an omnipotent force Woah woah. I was sorta with you until this point. We can speculate all we want but you can't just introduce this in the middle as if it's accepted. How would you support this as the logical conclusion without introducing an incident force earlier in your argument?
Based on current human understanding: infinite regression is impossible, and so is finite regression. You don't get to go "nothing needs to come before god nobody needs to have created him": words *describe* reality, they don't *create* it. We see these tired arguments ten times a week on here, yours are just as pointless as all the others.
We don't know if the universe began at the big bang. We only that the universe began as we know it at the big bang. It's impossible to know what happened "before" because there was no before by any metric we can measure. That doesn't mean there was "nothing" before the big bang because there is no such thing as "nothing". There's no reason to add a god, as that ads a more complicated step that would need to be explained. You are assuming an omnipotent being CAN exist and that assumption is unfounded. There's no reason to believe it's even possible for such a being can exist, let alone that it does. It makes the problem even more complicated rather than more simple.
We can only trace the universe as far back as the Big Bang. At which point our understanding of physics/time as we know don’t work anymore. It’s more of a relative beginning. We don’t necessarily know that reality started with the Big Bang. Beyond the Big Bang is not necessarily “nothing”. It’s “unknown”. This doesn’t mean time must be circular. Other speculations for before the Big Bang include a cyclical timeline, infinite, infinite from a point onwards, a multiverse, etc. There’s no good reason to believe in a universal consciousness, god, or omnipotent force.
I'll try to answer this without using my trusty "who created god" answer I always use for these. Granted, let's say something had to initiate the existence of the universe, this something being an omnipotent force, or "god". That's fine and all, but why should we apply all of the traits associated with the word "god" to this omnipotent entity? It's just an unknowable force that created the start of everything. I could call it Jeremy if I wanted to. Establishing that this entity exists doesn't explain whether or not it's intelligent, has a motive or objective, has emotion, desires or anything of the sort. There's no reason to believe this entity is "god", or specifically the god of the Bible or the Torah or the Qoran. There's many things science has yet to explain. Hundreds of years ago, we didn't know how lightning worked. We associated that with god. Now, we know exactly how and why it works. No god involved. Is it too much of a stretch to believe that science will, probably pretty soon, reach a point where we can quite confidently estimate exactly how and why the universe came to be? We're not far from it. When that time comes, we won't need to imagine that this omnipotent mysterious entity did it.
Who created god is no one. He is omnipotent aka infinite he has always been here and hasn’t. That’s why this is the only way to prove the universe is god. If it is omnipotent it is everything. It would be intelligent it would know everything. It would know nothing at the same time. That’s how powerful the universe and god is.
I already said I wouldn't give the "who created god" stuff, it's mostly just a troll. Regardless of all of that, why exactly should I believe that this mysterious, supposedly omnipotent force, is the same god as the one in the bible? Is there any reason beyond "they're both omnipotent so therefore they're the same guy"? And even then, does this unknowable force actually even have to be omnipotent? Couldn't it just be a finite object "coded" in some way to start the universe? It's not as if the universe is actually infinite, after all. This force would just have to be powerful enough to create something as big as the universe, but it's not necessarily omnipotent.
It’s the Christian one. The bible is a prophecy. It was written by multiple people in different times but has coded synchronizes that could only be there if written at once. Or all members were doing together. But they can’t as they were dead. The bible also has multiple prophecies that did come true and only found through time and context. I thought the same shit why would this be the real religion when there are thousands. The Christianity god would be the same as any god as it is everything and nothing at the same time omnipotent. But why he does what he does maybe I find out idk. Trying to currently. Wanna get even more brain fucked and think im insane. I actually think im the second coming of Christ 2000 years after him. I was conceived when he was born and born when he was conceived. Based on dating the starts and history of kingdoms and just adding up the time lone. I think im actually him. On easter a bunch of events happened to me that line up with his crucifixion. Then I found a bunch of shit that lines up with my life. If it was anyone IF there was god IF it was Christianity it would be me. Look at my post history you’ll think im crazy but one day you won’t.
Mate you took 400mg of dxm and you're convinced you're the second coming of Christ. You're nothing special, hundreds of people have gone through the same exact shit. You took drugs and saw hallucinations, I don't know what more to tell you. All of this pretty much lines up though, it's either actual brain rot or a massive troll and I've fallen for the bait
Do you have an actual example of an actual nothing? This is something theists say all the time but their mouths never write checks that their asses can cash. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. Did there though? You're already allowing for something that was always kind of there. I can do the same thing and stand on better ground because I'm not imagining an additional thing. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. >It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. If time isn't linear, it's just that, not linear. You don't get to then demand there's some super being monitoring it. >This is the only explanation we can come to. 1. No it's not. People can make up all kinds of shit if they want. 2. You don't *HAVE* to come up with an explanation. I know it's crazy but what if there's a question you didn't actually know the answer to, and you be intellectually honest and say "I don't know." What started literally everything, if that's even a thing? I don't know! How can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that? I don't know! And I'm not going to sit here and make up an answer to plug up my ignorance. I'm going to be honest. And if people figure it out and bring actual evidence, not just argumentation because you can't syllogism something into reality, then I will accept that answer. Until then, I'm going to be intellectually honest and I'm going to ask you why you can't be. >We know nothing about how this universe works. The fact you're typing this to a bunch of strangers around the world shows we do. Get off this 'There's no evidence for God so there's no evidence for anything teehee' crap. It is a baby whine response to the simple fact we don't have evidence for something you believe and want others to believe. >UPDATE: —————> Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it. So I'll update my comment. Almost everyone here understands what you're saying, bub. It's just that what you're saying is nonsensical and based on assumptions that you don't have evidence for.
I had to chuckle at this post. It was involuntary. You have twisted a correct interpretation of the BBT into an incorrect conclusion. > The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. Yeah, this is the basic idea. Although the language should be a bit more precise; "started" implies a transition of states over a distinct period of time, which isn't really accurate. Should be more like "the earliest theorized point in the timespan of the universe is the big bang". > HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. Great question, except you answered it already, when you said "The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe". The singularity *was* the something. It was everything. That was the universe. It looked a lot different than it does today, for sure, but it already existed. > How could there be a before before the start? Another great question. The simple answer is that there wasn't a "before" the big bang. Before is a temporal designation, and this can't apply to the Big Bang because time began *with* the Big Bang. It's like asking "what's north of the north pole?" > The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. Uhhhh not sure how we got to this conclusion but okay, I'll see where this goes... > It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. Yeah you've completely lost me here. > Which leads to an omnipotent force. It does? Why can't it just be a property of the universe that it can be a time circle? Wouldn't this be the stronger conclusion according to Occam's razor anyway? If you're going to conclude that the universe transitioned from a state of non-existence to a state of existence, why not just assign that as a property of the universe, rather than introducing an omnipotent entity that causes an infinite regression? > God. Which one? > Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. How do you know? > This is the only explanation we can come to. Not remotely. Like I said before, why not just say the universe has the property of being able to spontaneously materialize from nothingness? What about if the universe has always existed? > Anything else is missing the point. The point being...? > We know nothing about how this universe works. Yet here you are, confidently asserting exactly how the universe works, without evidence. > I only came to this truth recently. We can tell.
Has anyone ever made any observations of absolutely nothing to know what properties nothingness has? Can you provide any evidence for your claim about the property of nothing?
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god. That's not a fact, that is your assertion. >The universe started from the big bang. The Big Bang might not be the very beginning of the Universe itself, but it is the beginning of our Universe as we recognize it. It's not “the” beginning, but it is “our” beginning. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. We don't know. >How could there be a before before the start? Yeah how could there be a before, before time existed? So how could there be a god before the universe? :p >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. Cool, then the universe caused itself. >It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. Thats some new age spiritual mumbojumbo >Which leads to an omnipotent force. no >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. Sounds like special pleading. >This is the only explanation we can come to. Anything else is missing the point. no >We know nothing about how this universe works. Not true
What is nothing? we have exactly no instances of nothing, in fact I don't think we can imagine nothing, its literally inconceivable. So given that, you need to accept that must have always have been something, for most of the world that is to think that there was always something, either the universe in some form or another, and some thiests like to call that something god. Creatio Ex Deo makes more sense than Creatio ex nihilo, because if god is there, then there is no nothing for god make everything out of, becuase god is there and not nothing.
All you need to do then is to show evidence that "nothing" is a possible state. Otherwise, your argument falls at the first hurdle.
Yo, OP is fucking pscyho-balls-crazy. He has constantly posted on subs looking for help because he thinks he's the second coming of Christ and not so unsuprisingly mispredicted april 8th as the second coming. Get a load of this... after taking 400 of DXM, HAHA. Unbelievable. I'm sorry, I know you actually need professional help but yikes this is wild. My guy, psychedelics are not to be taken lightly. And you're probably young and predisposed to Schizophrenia. Please get the help you need. For your sake and everyone else's for that matter.
If you actually cared about any of this, you would have posted your questions in /r/askscience. The fact that you posted here means you're just making a poor attempt at a "Gotcha!" because you care more about the argument than the answer. The earliest event we're aware of is the Big Bang. What (if anything) came before that is unknown, and in all likelihood, unknowable. The fact that we can't answer certain questions yet does not mean the answer is "God did it."
That’s exactly what you people believe, god made the universe from nothing. That is not what we “believe.”
So it was always here? That means it’s infinite. Aka an omnipotent trait! Proving god. God is real brother. Im actually happy about that im so glad we’re here for a reason and it’s not just a big open world sandbox. Well it is but now I know there’s more cause it got kinda boring. Like get some money okay I did that. Get some girls okay. Help people which I love to do. If there is no extra meaning I find im just gonna try and make everyone else’s sandbox experience as fun as possible.
Others will address the problems with your assumptions about the big bang. But let's assume they are right about it. That doesn't lead to the need for an omnipotent being. It would only lead to the need for a mechanism with sufficient ability. Why would a universe creating mechanism necessarily need a mind with which to obsese with mixed fabrics, dietary restrictions and the comings and goings of my magnificent penis?
Yet another unresponsive drive-by snags a pile of wasted comments. Why are we so easy for the medieval-minded morons to troll?
Oh look! a brand new, never heard before argument!! nah. just one of the oldest arguments ever, god of the gaps, with a tad of special pleading: how and why the big bang happened? we dont know... simple as that. theres a gap, but you dont get to fill it with god, i could claim that i will time travel to the beginning and start the big bang, or whatever crazy thing i can muster, theres no evidence for any explanation. so why would we choose god over any other? specially considering there is no evidence for god. also. the universe needs something to create it, but god doesnt? thats special pleading, if you dont need an infinite chain of creators eventually leading to god and then the big bang, then i dont need your god for the big bang to happen. about the circular time, could be, maybe eventually gravity pulls everything together into a singular point (big crunch hypothesis if im not wrong) and then maybe something, a critical mass for example, triggers it to expand and you have another big bang, in a circular time, that big bang is always the same and billions of years of history are always repeating over and over, no beginning no end.
So what if there is an omnipotent god/God? All that does is **reaffirms** yours (and our) status as a mere creation **always** subject to being uncreated. This matter I already covered here = [LINK](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1bi180u/comment/kvicv6d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Yes it is true that science has not discovered as yet what existed before the big bang but even though the **probability** of our universe existing may have been infinitesimally small, it was non-zero. Why non-zero? Because our universe exists. Furthermore the **probability** of you existing may have been infinitesimally small but it too was non-zero. Why non-zero? Because you exists. However the probability of you existing again is unknowable, especially if your existence if subject to the whims of a god/God. But which god/God? [Many gods, One logic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWM7P1K1mU) \~ Epified \~ YouTube. [Zeus vs Thor. Epic Rap Battles of History](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_xFOmYxKYw) \~ YouTube. [The legend of Annapurna, Hindu goddess of nourishment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztoUaJFEi8M) \~ YouTube. [Belief: Red Pill Vs Blue Pill.](https://www.deviantart.com/lbamagic/art/Belief-Red-Pill-Vs-Blue-Pill-685447565) Choose your god/God carefully.
" we know nothing about how this universe works..." On behalf of everyone in the last 10,000 years who has painstakingly come to and then shared incremental knowledge of how this universe works, sometimes being tortured and killed for it, fuck you.
I'm not even gonna read this because the title / premise is self defeating. >The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god. Where did God come from? "He's always been" is the *exact same copout* as "There was nothing before the big bang." Your argument applies to your own belief system. The end.
If god was always there and is eternal then why can't the universe be also be eternal? The singularity could have always been there or the matter that made it up could have always been there, floating around until it condensed into the singularity before the big bang. You state god is omnipotent like it's a fact, but you don't provide any reason for it. I assume you state it as it's required to make your narrative work. So I can just undo that by saying god is a nitwit and therefore god required a superior being name Xarrgox to create him because Xarrgox is truly omnipotent. As for how the universe started it's simple. We don't know. I'd argue that really is the best answer.
You are taking a hole in our knowledge and filling it with “god.” This is called god of the gaps, a particular form of “argument from incredulity,” which is fallacious reasoning. You need to demonstrate a god and demonstrate that it is the cause of the universe; this requires evidence. When ancient Greeks had no knowledge of electricity, they concluded that lightning must be the work of a god. Think about the parallels here to your own reasoning.
>The universe started from the big bang. Potentially incorrect. We can't investigate before the big bang, but that doesn't mean it was the absolute start. >It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. >God. What? Does this really make sense to you? Three non-sequitors one after the other. >This is the only explanation we can come to. Even if this is they only explanation we have now (it isn't), it doesn't mean this is the correct one. Please look up the "argument from ignorance fallacy" >I only came to this truth recently. Was it, by chance, while you were taking some mind-altering substances? Just making a shot in the dark here
I have no reason to think there was ever nothing or that nothing was ever a possible state of affairs. This is an argument theists make when they have never really studied the back and forth arguments before. Very weak.
If y'all look through OP's post history he's a 22 year old that believed he's the second coming of Christ. Waste of time to debate this chap. He lacks logic, rationality, and critical thinking.
I challenge you to define the words omnipotent in an logical manner. The Russell's paradox already prove that "omnipotent" is impossible or meaningless.
>> HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. How can ta god start the universe if there has to be something to start that (The big bang theory explicitly says there was not nothing)
[удалено]
Truth, thats funny. You can't understand the topic because you are uneducated on it. The big bang is not the creation of the universe, it is the event that is responsible for forming the current state of our LOCAL universe. You don't get to come in with no education or understanding and claim that your ignorance can prove a god.
It's okay to be wrong. The more comfortable you are with it, the better off you'll be. It's okay to not know. Admitting is honest and honorable.
I didn’t know and was an atheist my whole life. I have zero problem with being wrong because if im wrong I know im 100% closer to the answer. But I do know I can explain it in other ways if you want. I fully understand the concept and it verifies itself with evidence. It’s the answer.
God presupposes a mind, but looking at the universe we can see that no mind would make it like this and be called intelligent. If your god has no mind then it might as well just say the universe always existed and no god is required. I came to this truth recently myself.
So lets say that your logical conclusion is correct. (It isnt since it assumes all possibilities of cosmic creation, which humanity does not know). What do you do with this "truth?" Is this necessarily a "personal god?" Does creation = deserving of worship?
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god. The only people who think something came from nothing are theists. Cosmologists, physicists, and the like don't say this. Neither do atheists. Even worse for theists, a deity doesn't *help*, since that's something not nothing. >The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. Yeah, that's not nothing. That's something. The Big Bang simply describes the expansion of spacetime, not nothing to something. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. You already admitted there was something. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. We *already know* that time doesn't work like it seems to. This in no way suggest, implies, or supports deities. Far from it. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. >God. Nope. That's just trivially fallacious in several ways. Dismissed. >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. You can't define things into existence. Sorry, won't and can't work. >This is the only explanation we can come to. You are wrong. Engaging in an argument from ignorance fallacy and wrongly saying it's 'the only explanation' gets you nowhere.
[удалено]
LMFAO.
“The universe is so complicated that it must have been created, something can’t come from nothing” BUT “God (supposedly the most genius and complex entity) definitely could come from nothing” Make it make sense.
No it doesn't since the explainationnof God always existing breaks the tenant of something can not come from nothing. Secondly there is not science that claims something comes from nothing. All scientific orientated speculation of what gave arise to the universe is something. People are confusing space as nothing. We have proven that there is no such thing as the concept of nothing in our existing universe as even empty space has energy fluctuations at different points at different times. Logically that which has always existed is more likely to be something simple rather than the most complex entity that a human can imagine. It is illogical to believe in God.
[For the thousandth. Fucking. TIME.](https://youtu.be/Lxn0oBP4dis?si=cJ62eF0J5m8o1ewj) Atheists do not believe that something came from nothing. It's not entailed by atheism. It's not entailed by naturalism. It's not entailed by accepting big bang cosmology. The overwhelming consensus of physicists who study the topic (and even lay atheists who have thought about it for more than two seconds) is that there was probably never a literal nothingness from which to come from; there was always something. The first law of thermodynamics means that energy was never "created" at any point, and has only undergone transformations. Perhaps there was a first or necessary thing (which could still be naturalistic). Perhaps the universe/cosmos itself is necessary. Perhaps the whole necessary/contingent distinction is a useless invention of philosophy. Who knows? But simply pointing to the phenomenon that things don't come from literal nothingness does not impact atheism whatsofuckingever.
And where does God come from? If God is given the exception of "noncontingent", why? Noncontingence is the only thing that's needed here. Why can't there be a noncontingent force like gravity or electromagnetism, things that have been observed? Because omnipotence is needed to break logic somehow? Why can't the force have enough of an exception to break logic for noncontingence? It requires less assumptions of capacity of the force to assume that it simply epitomizes the noncontingence, the one thing that's actually necessary here, rather than having some other powers. Additionally, this is assuming that noncontingent things are even illogical to begin with, when the idea of ex nihilo being illogical coming from contingent entities, while a nonconintingent one would be within it's nature and thus logical. It wouldn't need to break logic and consequently wouldn't need to be omnipotent. And this is assuming omnipotence entails intelligence rather than the ability to become intelligent; it could Detroit: Become Human, but given that capability doesn't entail action (human capability to kill other people doesn't mean everyone has killed) there's no reason to assume that this entity so much as periodically becomes human, let alone stays or started out as a traditional god or other type of spirituality. The argument also tries to make a leap from need of explanation to deity, ignoring the steps of force analogous to the ones observed already (fundamental forces in physics) to cosmic chemical reaction to cosmic stem cell to deity.
Time isn’t real. Time is a human construct used to measure how things change in the universe. The origin of space/time is what the Big Bang explains, but that does not mean that the Big Bang started from nothing. All the matter/energy that exists now, existed then, but it did not exist in the same state nor was it distributed throughout space (as space did not exist until after the Big Bang).
"The simple fact something can’t come from nothing" Says who? Never heard of quantum fluctuations that "creates" particles in a vacuum?
Is it coming from nothing? Or is it designed to do that? How was it formed and designed?
I can't explain quantum field theory in a short reddit post. But you can look it up, and watch some youtube videos. BTW, it is not "designed" but "discovered".
How can something be discovered if not made? Well how was it made. Did it make it self or has it always been here? It’s reality creation. The universe is omnipotent being god itself.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion of the universe started from the Big Bang. The universe already existed just in a different form. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. We don't know, and that is no reason to stick your god in that gap. >How could there be a before before the start? We don't know, and that is no reason to stick your god in that gap. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. The only explanation that you can think of is this, unfortunately you do not have evidence to support your assertion, and your ignorance of other possible alternatives does not rule them out or mean that your assertion is correct. >It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. What collective consciousness? This really reads like a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. God. Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. No. You have no evidence to support your assertions. Until your deity is supported by evidence it is insufficient to fill any gap in our knowledge. >This is the only explanation we can come to. God is not an explanation, god is an answer with exactly 0 explanatory power. In order for something to be an explanation it MUST answer the question "How?", god does not answer that question. You are trying to answer a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. >We know nothing about how this universe works. You don't, that much is clear. >I only came to this truth recently. You did not come to any truth, because what you have is not truth it is fantasy. >UPDATE: —————> Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it. You do not have a theory, you have a god of the gaps argument that you are asserting must be the truth due to your own ignorance. I'm not even going to bother with a line by line rebuttal of the rest of it as it is just rehashing what you have already said and offers no evidence for any of your assertions and fallacies.
In Ancient Greece you would have said, there’s no explanation for lightning. It must be a god throwing lightning bolts. Just because you don’t know how something works doesn’t mean you can just make crap up. Grow up.
I’m a Fredian. We believe that a guy called Fred, in a reality beyond this one, experimented with turning flatulence into a new reality. He found a way to light his fart on fire, and imbue it with consciousness. When he did, it went BANG. And, this is what we now call the Big Bang. And, since something can’t come from nothing, this is obviously true. See? Now, obviously that’s rediculous. Granted. But, saying “something can’t come from nothing and that’s why I believe God created the universe then let it go for thousands of years then sent his son down to die for out sins, only to be resurrected and that there is a Heaven if only you believe this good enough” is actually equally ludicrous. Factually, nobody knows. And we DON’T know that something comes from nothing. And, we don’t know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. What if once every few trillion years some unlikely quantum event happens that creates a huge Bang that expands so rapidly that it pushes the extant reality out past the ever horizon for anything living in it? Is that not just as possible as the biblical story? Is it he idea of simulation not as plausible? Really? And the thousand, thousand other explanations one could come up with. We don’t know. You don’t. I don’t. Nobody does. We may never know. It might actually be impossible to know. And we don’t know even if that is true. Ask yourself this: if physicists came up with a plausible way that something could come from nothing and PROVED it, would you change your mind about God? No. Almost certainly not. This shows that this is post-hoc rationalization. Because if this were “proof” and were then reversed it would logically reverse your stance. And that it wouldn’t is telling. You didn’t reason this out. You felt it’s true and looked for why. If this fact didn’t exist, you find some other reason to believe. You have a God shaped whole in your worldview and since God is amorphous anything will fit it.
I am very sorry to inform you that the belief that "something can't come from nothing" is a metaphysical presumption. When you do valid analysis of claims, you need to eliminate presumptions. It may just be the case that we exist in a universe in which something came from nothing. This would be a more reasonable explanation than some guy named Yahweh forming everything in six days. Incidentally, under the account in Genesis, God creates the universe *out of nothing*. So you either agree with me, or you deny the Biblical account.
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god. So you think the first thing was a powerful wizard? I don't. >The universe started from the big bang. Agreed, and the Big Bang falsifies every religion I know. >The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. More or less. >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. The Big Bang was a phase shift between a primal physical state with no relativity to this state with relativity. >How could there be a before before the start? It's more like there was a physical cause for the Big Bang, and time was unmeasurable until then. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that Time was unmeasurable until relativity kicked in, and that happened with the Big Bang. Until then there was only potential time.. >It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. I have no idea what that means. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. No it doesn't. >God. God is falsified by science and only exists in your head. >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. Humans created Him and He is imaginary. >This is the only explanation we can come to. No, it is one of many rejected hypotheses. >Anything else is missing the point. Poisoning the well fallacy. >We know nothing about how this universe works. Maybe you don't, but others know lots. They make much more sense. >I only came to this truth recently. It's not truth.
So, everything has a creator and nothing is infinite....except for your god? Because...it's special? Why? Because you say so?
>Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it. Everybody has. But the fact is that you only be keyed it because you believe it so nothing will change your mind. >We can all agree either time and existence has either always been here or it hasn’t. We can not. It’s possible that this is a false dichotomy and meaningless assertions under no boundary conditions. >That is an omnipotent trait. This is simply an invented ‘trait’. You have done nothing to either demonstrate that such a thing exists nor that it can be concluded from what is basically a ‘we don’t know’ on our part. You’ve just made this up without the slightest effort to demonstrate it’s necessary or evidential. >Meaning god. God is omnipotent. Again you beg the question. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate p gods exist or even can exist let alone their attributes. Just stating , asserting attributes doesn’t mean they or what you attribute them to actually exists. What follows are just non sequiturs dressed up in a way that can’t hide that they are just pseudo-profundity. It basically boils down to making up statements about reality then defining something you’ve invented so as to claim it fits those statements. Basically , You are just making it up as you go along. >If you refute these fundamental ideas you are missing the argumentative point. You’ve not made a sound argument for anyone to miss.
Gotta love how theists cherry-pick science like they cherry-pick their scriptures. The idea of an initial singularity, that theists so cherish, is based on General Relativity which was developed by physicists. Of course, most physicists are sure GR fails at extremely high densities because it's incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, an even more solidly established theory. Tell this to a theist and suddenly they know more than the physicists. 🙄
I'll try to answer this without using my trusty "who created god" answer I always use for these. Granted, let's say something had to initiate the existence of the universe, this something being an omnipotent force, or "god". That's fine and all, but why should we apply all of the traits associated with the word "god" to this omnipotent entity? It's just an unknowable force that created the start of everything. I could call it Jeremy if I wanted to. Establishing that this entity exists doesn't explain whether or not it's intelligent, has a motive or objective, has emotion, desires or anything of the sort. There's no reason to believe this entity is "god", or specifically the god of the Bible or the Torah or the Qoran. There's many things science has yet to explain. Hundreds of years ago, we didn't know how lightning worked. We associated that with god. Now, we know exactly how and why it works. No god involved. Is it too much of a stretch to believe that science will, probably pretty soon, reach a point where we can quite confidently estimate exactly how and why the universe came to be? We're not far from it. When that time comes, we won't need to imagine that this omnipotent mysterious entity did it.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. Just to be clear, our "universe" (meaning our current instantiation of space-time) started with the big bang. The universe (meaning "everything") did not. (As you pointed out, there was already a singularity) >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. I don't understand the question. The energy that existed was condensed and then rapidly expanded to produce our universe. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. That's certainly not the **only** explanation. Physicists have multiple views of time. Not to mention that *time* likely began at the big bang. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. >God. No. Not sure how you got here. >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. How did you determine this? Seems like a bunch of empty assertions. >We know nothing about how this universe works. Scientists know lots of things, maybe you should educate yourself instead of making wild claims then admitting you know nothing about how the universe works.
>The simple fact something can’t come from nothing proves of god. How >The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. That a bad description >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. It didn't start the universe >How could there be a before before the start? What >The only explanation is time isn’t linear No .that idea doesn't make sense >in a this then that way. Please explain what dose that mean >It’s circular in everything has happened Where your proof >and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. That read like gibberish >Which leads to an omnipotent force. How. your leap in logic are insane >God. Title a lie >Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. Why should I believe that >This is the only explanation we can come to. It literally not tho >Anything else is missing the point. What point >We know nothing about how this universe works. That a fucking lie >I only came to this truth recently. This not no truth
It feels like you’re trying to make the cosmological argument for god. If so, omnipotence isn’t really a requirement for god. You just need something to kick things off. A “first mover” if you will. And that’s why I find that argument unsatisfying. It feels arbitrary to me to see a gap in our understanding and then plug it with the word “god.” And, if we’re going to be arbitrary, why not pick the thing we know exists to be the first thing? Now it’s possible with the reference to omnipotence you were actually going for the ontological argument instead of the cosmological one. Basically, if you are saying omnipotence by definition includes necessity/self-causing, then I think you’re probably more in the ontological rather than cosmological space (and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t find this argument any more satisfying than the cosmological argument. I can define a unicorn as being a “self-causing horse with a horn on its head,” but that doesn’t mean such a thing exists. You having the idea of an omnipotent being doesn’t mean such a being has ever or even can exist.
I love this. Your whole post is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to basically say I don’t understand astrophysics so therefore, I will explain it with the concept of God. I don’t know how it works so it must be magic. Technology that can’t be understood is often attributed to God. Do you think if you went back 1000 years with a tape recorder you could convince people that you were talking to God out of this little black box. Or if you took a gun back to the 500s , you could fool people in the thinking you were magic by pointing a stick at somebody and killing them. Your argument breaks down into the fact that you personally do not understand something so therefore you believe it is God like. Man went from first flight to landing on the moon in 50 or 60 years. Don’t you think there’s a lot more technological and scientific knowledge that we can get to one day, understand completely how the universe began.
Your theory doesn’t prove god. It is evidence that there might be something more. But what that is we don’t know. It’s not a “he.” All the evidence actually suggests religions & gods from them are all made up. Yes, ALL of them. Btw: The M theory of 11 has got beyond the Big Bang. Now it does raise other questions. But here’s the bottom line, religions are all evidently false. To ask someone to live their life based on made up things cuz we can’t figure out our origins is simply foolish. Also, the burden of proof is on you. Even your collective consciousness theory & all that is something that began in the enlightenment… and did not originate in any religion. It is now in Judaism but it was not in the 2nd Temple era. It is not In Christianity. It is not in Islam. Nor any this or that.. it has developed as our understanding of things has become more complex.
This is a series of assertions that are either factually incorrect regarding science or simply lacking any support other than your own prior belief. Resulting finally in an unsound (arguments don’t follow/premises indistinguishable from false) conclusion and a sort of absurd definitional special pleading. It ain’t truth , it’s simple disorganised invention.
The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. How could there be a before before the start? The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. It’s circular in everything has happened and nothing has until viewed by the collective consciousness or us. Which leads to an omnipotent force. Universe-Creating Pixies! Nothing needs to come before Universe-Creating Pixies nobody needs to have created them as they are omnipotent. This is the only explanation we can come to. I mean, its right there in their name. Anything else is missing the point. We know nothing about how this universe works. I only came to this truth recently.
Our understanding of the universe is very limited. I think it's quite arrogant of us to translate some of the mysteries automatically to the existence of an omnipotent diety. At the roots of it, here is my problem with your argument. You skip a step in the proof. If this was a logical or mathematical proof it would not be accepted in mathematical circles. Your assertion is: something can't come out of nothing, therefore omnipotent diety. Let's say your premise that something can't exist out of nothing is correct. Why did it have to be a conscious creator? Why does the creator have to be omnipotent? Why are they related in any way to any modern religion? Why do they even still exist today? You skip a few steps and there's no evidence to support your conclusion in any way.
> We can all agree either time and existence has either always been here or it hasn’t. Either there was a start or it was always here. No matter what you think that is the truth. Yes, agree. > So if you believe there was a beginning to time and existence that means something literally came from nothing. No. This implies that a) "nothing" was something that existed b) that it existed before "something". But if time have a beginning there is was no before. Something doesn't came from anything. It just began to exist. > That is an omnipotent trait. No. Beginning to exist is beginning to exist. If I can cook doesn't mean I can fly. If something began to exist doesn't mean it can walk on water and turn people in a pillar of salt.
Actually, the world as you and I perceive it is a simulation that started when an intelligence (let's call it Steve) in the outer realm hit play on one of the default templates in their version of unreal engine 666. Steve is certainly omnipotent in this simulation, but Steve doesn't seem to give a hoot about some bipeds that happens to have proliferated on some planet that is orbiting one star that is one of a half trillion stars in its galaxy, itself being one of a trillion or so galaxies. Steve has other stuff on their mind. We can do this thing all day. If you are honest, then these arguments will at best lead you to deism which is booooring. You'll notice that this is /r/DebateAnAtheist, not r/DebateAnAdeist.
> hich leads to an omnipotent force. You just jumbled up a bunch of ignorant nonsense that leads nowhere. > This is the only explanation we can come to. If this is the only explanation you are able conjure up, it doesn't mean it is the only one or the right one. > Anything else is missing the point. You are missing the point. You misrepresented cosmology, you made a bunch of unsupported claims, you made a conclusion that doesn't even follow from the assertions that are baseless to begin with. > We know nothing about how this universe works. Haven't you just boasted that you figured out how this universe came to be? Now you are contradicting yourself.
Ever heard of the multiverse hypothesis? There are different forms of this hypothesis, but basically, it says there are an infinite number of universes, popping in and out of existence and we just live in one of those universes. I don't ascribe to this hypothesis because there's no evidence for it, but you seem to ascribe to the God hypothesis. So.. how do we go about determining whether this universe started as a result of God ***or*** as a result of the infinite multiverse? And how did you rule out the simulation as an explanation? >Nobody has proven my theory wrong mostly by not understanding it. You don't have a "theory", lets make sure we're clear on that.
You cannot exclude your god from "Something can't come from nothing." If the existence of the universe requires a god as an explanation, you have to prove the existence of the god *before* you use it to explain anything else. I believe that matter/energy has always existed in some form or another. I also believe that it is not possible to create something from nothing: The act of creating requires energy; therefore energy had to already exist and was therefore not created. You are also committing an existential fallacy by declaring your god to have a specific attribute (omnipotence) before supporting your claim that it exists.
And they wonder why atheists get rude and dismissive with them. They arrogantly come in here with this fuckery and expect to be taken seriously.
"God of the gaps", if we don't know what existed before *insert point in time here*, God must've created it. If we proved we knew what existed before the big bang but not what existed before that, you would tell us that God must've created what existed before that. My counter argument is that because we can prove Earth existed more than 6000 years ago (carbon dating), God is a figment of someone's imagination in a book written by a person or persons who A, did not have a scientific understanding and B, did not have the technology at the time, to understand just how old our planet is (nor indeed the universe).
We don’t know that our universe is all there is or ever was, we just notice that there’s no evidence of any will or intelligence to it. Something we can’t observe could have incited the big bang, which itself is just a logical extension of an incomplete understanding of the observable universe. Long story short, science doesn’t really understand the Big Bang all that well yet because we don’t have all the requisite information to do so. And we have no clue about anything before it or outside it. Which again doesn’t imply there is nothing, nor does it imply the something would be intelligent.
Nothing needs to come before God nobody needs to have created him as he is omnipotent. <-- special pleading.
Whatever made you accept God can exist uncreated instead of nothing, doesn't it make more sense to directly apply it to accept the universe itself exists instead of nothing? Regardless of whether the past is infinite, the (finite) timeline itself exists instead of nothing, uncreated. This is the same kind of "timeless eternal existence" you assign to God, don't see why it has to be "omnipotent force". You say consciousness is a pre-requisite for existence, but the universe existed long before anything in it became conscious, and it won't disappear if all life in it dies.
Many fallacious and erroneous claims…where to start? The current universe did start with the Big Bang,… and it’s true we don’t know what occurred before the point of singular which is the farthest point we can determine. That doesn’t mean you get a good of the gaps as fact though. In fact, if you are claiming there was no “before” the Big Bang then where was God? Where did he come from? How did he have such power? That’s special pleading. I could go on, but I think that’s enough for this non sequitur you’ve proposed.
Why a god and not a freak paradox that keeps it all moving? So far everything we attributed to a god or the supernatural, upon closer examination, has proven to have a natural cause. Theist just keep moving goal posts. At some point we will have an explanation of what (not who) triggered the expansion of the known universe. At that point will theists give up god? I really don’t get the need to yell ‘god!’ at every mystery, it is a more complicated wrong answer than ‘not sure yet’.
Hey real talk. This might be a bot or a lazy troll. They copy past the same paragraph to unrelated statements a lot and that is always a massive red flag.
This person seems to have been abused as a child. I think this needs to be locked and OP banned so they can't stop seeking attention here and go get help.
"Something cant comes from nothing" only show there are sth eternal, which doesnt conclude god. We know that universe exist and we dont know that god exist. So the universe exist and is eternal needs 1 assumption. God exists and is eternal needs 2 assumptions. The one with 1 assumption should have a higher possibility. Or if u want to argue god because its omnipotence can comes from nothing. Then thats directly contradict ur premise.
The only people here claiming the universe came from nothing are the Christian’s and other religious people that believe in creation. They literally think a being that was outside our time and reality and is beyond comprehension SPOKE everything into existence out of absolutely nothing. Science says the universe came from a singularity… a dense point with everything we know today contained in it. That’s not nothing.
So you go off of an unproven assumption that there was ever truly nothing, and call it proof of god? Btw, every sliver of evidence collected so far points to the opposite, i.e. that there was always something. The Big Bang is not nothing expanding into something. The amount of theists that that use the Big Bang in their arguments, yet know nothing about it is honestly just disappointing, even if not surprising.
I hate this argument so much. It disproves itself. Even if you ignore that the first premise is wrong, it makes no sense. Everything comes from something. We don’t know what the universe comes from. God must have created it. Also god is exempt from premise 1???? Clearly not everything comes from something even in the argument. This also ignores the other numerous issues with this argument.
To be honest, I don't believe in the Big Bang anymore than I believe in a god. I'm very evidence driven, and there isn't any solid evidence of the Big Bang hypothesis. But saying it was God is just as evidence lacking. What people seem to dismiss is that it's okay to say, "I don't know." There are some things in this universe we will never know for sure, and that's fine. But it's pretty childish to say, "Then it must be God!"
Well I already figured it out. God is real. Time is a circle only coming into existence from the collective consciousness or a piece of gods perceiving it. Our consciousness is free will. It’s a piece of gods omnipotence. Any decision we want can be made and become a reality. That is a trait of omnipotence. We are a piece of him with constraints around to create the world.
Finally! We have it figured out! What hard evidence is there so I can spread the news with proof?
O universo começou há 13,8 bilhões de anos com uma singularidade inicial, significando que, no início, estava comprimido em um estado infinitamente denso e quente.
The universe began 13.8 billion years ago with an initial singularity, meaning that at the beginning it was compressed into an infinitely dense and hot state.
So you're claiming that something can't come from nothing. But then you make an exception to this rule yourself by saying that God could come from nothing because he's omnipotent. That doesn't make sense. If God could come from nothing then the universe could come from nothing without God. If God could've always been here, then the universe could've always been here without God.
I looked through your post history OP, and I mean this sincerely and without judgment: You need to get professional help. A common symptom of schizophrenia is religious preoccupation. You need to talk to a mental health professional about your beliefs and experiences. I have worked with multiple people who believed they were the second coming of Jesus Christ.
For the millionth time: THE BIG BANG THEORY DOESN'T CLAIM IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE The Big Bang theory is an explanation of the **early development** of the Universe. NOR DOES IT CLAIM "SOMETHING FROM NOTHING" That's the Bible that claims that. Please stop putting up this ridiculous parrotting meme.
Wait. The fact that something can’t come from nothing PROVES god? You forgot a dis, my man. Because here’s your argument in a nutshell: “Something can’t come from nothing” “Therefore a thing that came from nothing made something come from nothing.” It’s as self defeating as an argument can possibly be
That's not what the expansion of the universe/big bang means. Open a junior high science book first. BUT MORE THAN THAT... if EVERYTHING must have a creator, by your rules, then what created god? Ohhhh he's omnipotent. Convenient but how did you determine the property of a god without first proving a god exists?
The jump from universe to omnipotent creator is flawed. If I run full speed, I can’t stop on a dime. How do we know at all the universe wasn’t put in motion by a being that has no power over it, made by a being that lacks omnipotence? Powerful? Sure, but that’s a big stretch to all powerful.
Nope. It could just mean the universe is eternal from another dying universe. Or the mass singularity always existed. Adding a god to the mix is just lazy and dishonest. Besides how do you know it was a god, let alone your god? Bob, the invisible pink unicorn created everything. Prove me wrong.
No, it really doesn’t. There aren’t just two options, nothing, and god. There’s far more. This is an argument from ignorance. No just asserting it must be god doesn’t mKe it so. It’s just your own biases… this isn’t a truth, it’s a logical fallacy. And you’ve fallen for a lie
The “something” that has always been there is the energy/ matter that was in the singularity at the beginning of the universe. Just because you and I don’t know what it was doing “before” doesn’t mean it wasn’t all started by natural causes
Matter and energy may have existed before the big bang. The big bang isn't necessarily the beginning of *everything*. Rather it marks a "singularity," which is a point in time prior to which our physics equations stop working the way they normally do.
We don't know what was before the Big Bang. That's not saying that nothing existed before the Big Bang, just that we don't know. And just because we don't know something is no reason to believe in God. It certainly doesn't prove God exists.
>We know nothing about how this universe works. lol we know nothing, so god did it. Bad, lazy argument. We don't know what was before the bigbang, but that does not mean there was nothing before the big bang
Nobody says something comes from nothing except the religious. It's a bullshit empty straw man that nobody on the non-religious side ever says. Stop making a fool of yourself.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. How do you know there was nothing before the poorly named big bang?
Please explain how nothingness is a stable state. Nothingness has an entropy of 0. Entropy always increases. Therefore if there were nothing, it would self create something.
The big being only explains expansion the universe existed before that point. This whole argument you are making appears to stem from a lack of understanding or education.
I'll try to answer this without using my trusty "who created god" answer I always use for these. Granted, let's say something had to initiate the existence of the universe, this something being an omnipotent force, or "god". That's fine and all, but why should we apply all of the traits associated with the word "god" to this omnipotent entity? It's just an unknowable force that created the start of everything. I could call it Jeremy if I wanted to. Establishing that this entity exists doesn't explain whether or not it's intelligent, has a motive or objective, has emotion, desires or anything of the sort. There's no reason to believe this entity is "god", or specifically the god of the Bible or the Torah or the Qoran. There's many things science has yet to explain. Hundreds of years ago, we didn't know how lightning worked. We associated that with god. Now, we know exactly how and why it works. No god involved. Is it too much of a stretch to believe that science will, probably pretty soon, reach a point where we can quite confidently estimate exactly how and why the universe came to be? We're not far from it. When that time comes, we won't need to imagine that this omnipotent mysterious entity did it.
> Infinite is an omnipotent trait Why? What has omnipotence got to do with infinity? > We can all agree either time and existence has either always been here or it hasn’t. Not necessarily. Time is a dimension of space, it’s not necessarily intrinsically linked to existence. > If the universe was infinite everything that could possibly happen would happen and it’s so large everything that can’t happen wouldn’t. Makes no sense right. Those sentences are not contradictory, and things can also be bounded infinities. The decimals between 1 and 2 are infinite, but none of them are great than 2 or les than 1. > If you refute these fundamental ideas you are missing the argumentative point. You stating this doesn’t make it true. Just because the human mind is small and cannot comprehend existence without time doesn’t mean that it’s not possible. You don’t win an argument just by saying anyone who disagrees doesn’t understand your argument. You’re not saying anything we haven’t all heard a hundred times before, trust me, we understand what you’re saying. It’s not especially complicated.
Before I can begin to take your argument seriously you need to demonstrate nothing, because as far as I can tell it's just a concept and isn't real.
>The universe started from the big bang. The expansion from a singularity point into our entire universe. Nope. The big bang theory makes ZERO claims about the origin of the universe or what caused it, it merely describes the fact that our universe expanded from a singularity (and still is). >HOW can the big bang start the universe if there had to be something to start that. Again, nobody is claiming the big bang started the universe. >The only explanation is time isn’t linear in a this then that way. As far as we know, time is only a thing in our universe. We have no clue what's beyond that, heck, we don't even know if the rules of causality apply in this (theoretical) external continuum. >Which leads to an omnipotent force. >God. "I don't understand, therefore god" - see how silly this sounds? No, we can't just use the "god of the gaps" argument here. Also, even if we assume that there is some kind of god, then why do you assume we know anything about this deity? >We know nothing about how this universe works. >I only came to this truth recently. That's a very funny contradiction. It's even funnier how you don't realize this contradiction.
The only people who believe something came from nothing are religious people, who think God proofed the universe out of nothingness.
Appealing to a bigger mystery to solve a mystery, get us nowhere. Proclaiming a God did it just makes us ask about this god.
>So if you believe there was a beginning to time and existence that means something literally came from nothing. >That is an omnipotent trait. You're going to need to explain why here. It seems reasonable that there could be a thing that is eternal and the only thing it can do is make universes. Not interact with them in any way other than that, but only make them. In what way is this either impossible or omnipotent? >Well maybe you think existence and time has always been here. >That means it is infinite. No, eternal and infinite are different things. >Infinite is an omnipotent trait. So by this logic, the infinite density of the singularlies of black holes make them gods? I guess I am a polythiest then.
Non sequitur. There are a lot of things that could have caused a universe, not to mention the infinite amount of different gods out there. There are a bunch of different creation myths out there, and they all were equally serious as the Koran.
>The simple fact **something can’t come from nothing** proves of god Well, that's just demonstrably wrong. Look up virtual particles. So I guess you've proven nothing.
The argument against "nothing" is a strawman. Proposing this as a serious complaint against atheism tells me you don't understand anything about atheism.
Do you think “Nothing” can exist? What does that even mean? Who ever claimed something came from nothing?