How atheism explains that from nothing came everything?
[removed]
Posted May 28, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC
074
Explain where the all powerful, all knowing, invisible sky man came from.
16
The God in the bible isnt affected by time space or a matter, otherwise hes not a God. Imagine like the guy created the computer - hes not inside the computer, he`s unnafected of the computer, just like the universe.
-15
Assertions are not evidence.
15
I just propose a logical explaination of the universe. Its simple.
-6
Fine. Now support your proposal with evidence. Otherwise it's not worth anything.
8
It is both not logical (given it merely regresses the issue precisely one iteration without reason or explanation, making it worse, and is utterly unsupported, and this is unable to be escaped without a special pleading fallacy and/or infinite regression, nor does it even address the issue it purports to address given this) nor supported.
So it must be, and is, dismissed.
2
That’s not even remotely an explanation. You’re suggesting that the most powerful thing in existence just appeared and was floating endlessly in nothingness until he decided to pull 500 billion galaxies out of his pocket. Yet you think the Big Bang is silly, despite all the testable/observable evidence that support it....
5
This unsupported claim literally doesn't address the issue. It merely uses attempted word play to try to sidestep it. Your analogy is an example of that, and I would trust and hope you understand how and why.
3
Atheism makes zero claims on the origin of the universe or life, see r/science.
9
how you can justify and have a belief that a big boom happened and created every planet and object in the universe?
i suggest you watch some universe documentaries or astronomy courses
9
I dont like cartoons and animations. Lets talk about reality
-8
Is it reality to live inside a whale or to have a virgin birth? Lmao
10
A talking snake is reality to you?
5
No one is saying that everything came from nothing. Nothing cannot exist.
8
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). Nothing else.
That being said, I'll give you my own naturalistic take on it:
I don't believe there can be a "nothing". Even calling it a nothing makes it a something — let alone ascribing it properties like "it exists", "it has the potential to generate stuff", etc.
We don't know anything about the big bang beyond the Planck time, but saying "don't know therefore God" is a fallacy. It's also quite ridiculous because it raises an even more complicated question: where did God come from? If God doesn't need a creator, then "doesn't need a creator" is a hypothetical you might as well apply to the cosmos and have a simpler, naturalistic explanation. But in any case, the rational thing to do is admit "I don't know".
7
I don't know. I'm not sure if anybody knows. If you want to know, go borrow a book from the library about it. Read. Learn.
Atheism has no stance on the origin of the universe.
7
show me there was ever nothing
5
Have you ever spoken to an atheist? Because it honestly sounds to me like you’ve only spoken to other religious people who told you straw-mans about what atheists believe.
5
That damn big boom. Things come from nothing all the time, trees are dropping seeds right now and producing new saplings all by themselves. It just rained so if I go out the woods there will be mushrooms and toadstools where nothing else was yesterday. Dandelions populated my lawn last month came from nowhere and are now basically gone. Are you going to give a wizard credit for all these natural occurrences?
4
Great example - God just gave us the rules, the physics law, created everything with a purpose and for a reason. I like the flowers example
-3
[deleted]
1
Lawrence Krause wrote a great book about this, A Universe From Nothing. If you actually want to understand its a good place to start.
3
What does whether i can explain something or not have to do with whether your god exists or not?
If you have something to support the existence of your god then present it, if not bugger off with your fallacious nonsense.
3
There's a few problems.
First: Atheists typically (because atheism only addresses one specific answer to one specific question) are comfortable with the answer "I don't know."
So how does something come from nothing? (that's really what you're alluding to -- the big bang theory states that there was a superdense singularity which expanded in the event we call the big bang -- not something some nothing. Where that singularity came from is a completely different question, one which may never be answered because all of the tools we have at our disposal to investigate can't reach back past - as much as that word means anything when time as we know it didn't exist yet - the big bang because they're based on the laws of physics that formed during the big bang)
So there's two answers to that question.
I don't know, therefore I don't know.
I don't know, therefore I know.
The latter is what "I don't know therefore God" actually is, and it sound rather silly if you remove the label "god" from it and acknowledge what it actually means, doesn't it?
Second: Was there ever a Nothing?
This is the core problem with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, in my opinion. If there was ever a philosophical nothing (as distinguished from hard vacuum, which is also nothing but which also includes things like the underlying fabric of time/space and the laws of physics)... then what?
The Kalam goes something like this: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Everything began to exist, therefore everything has a cause. (and that cause is god).
But that's not the original form of the kalam. Originally it said "everything that exists has a cause." A subtle difference, but if you read it again you realize the problem. It introduces special pleading into it's premise.
Everything that begins to exist. So then the question is did this god character begin to exist? In order for the kalam to 'prove' god, then no. It did not begin to exist. It is without beginning (and usually without end, it is eternal).
But now you are clearly acknowledging that there is a category of things which exist which do not have beginnings. So you need to justify not including the mass/energy of the universe in this category (which does exist) but to include god (which you are trying to show actually exist) into this category.
Suddenly you have a much harder argument with even less evidence or philosophical musings to go on. Because first you have to prove that god exists and then you need to prove it doesn't have a beginning. But if you can prove god exists, you don't need the kalam to show that god must exist...
3
Atheism is lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism isn’t a belief system. It is a lack of belief. Atheism doesn’t explain the origins of the universe. That is astrophysics, quantum physics, astronomy, chemistry, and a host of other areas of scientific study. They are all still working on it. We will probably never be done refining our understanding of the natural universe. But that ok. As long as we are not being delusional and think that some magical sky wizard made it all. Stop thinking that atheism is an alternative belief system. It is not a belief system.
3
There is evidence for the Big Bang. There is no evidence for gods
3
There is a belief for Big Bang, not evidence.
-1
Well, the Big Bang did not instantly create the planets. The big bang was a rapid expansion of a singularity that resulted in the universe as we know it today.
2
Atheism doesn't explain or justify it. It doesn't have to. Atheism deals with not having a belief in a god or gods. Beginning of the universe is not a question thats included. Most atheists leave that kind of a question to cosmology.
2
how you can justify and have a belief that a big boom happened and created every planet and object in the universe?
I don't believe that, therefore I have no need to justify it. Educate yourself.
2
How atheism explains that from nothing came everything?
Atheism says nothing on the subject. Physics says everything came from a fuckton of energy. Hence The Big Bang (recently reupdated to the Big Bounce).
e=mc^2
2
How is that less plausible than a god creating everything?
2
I dont understand therefore god - primate thinking
You expect to understand God? No one can, he`s beyond that type of understanding we can expect.
Not at all. Seems like you understand him strangely well ...
Yet you somehow seem to understand him, funny how that works.