Let’s Get One Thing Clear: Atheists Do Not Believe Something Came From Nothing!

bbt

This nonsense that [we] atheists believe something came from nothing is utter nonsense.

Your understanding of atheists is lacking. The only people that say we atheists believe we come from nothing is your pastors. Keep parroting their ignorance  You live for the god of the gaps, but those gaps are closing rapidly with new knowledge we gain everyday.

No. Most Atheists believe in the science of the Big Bang, as explained by Einstein. Just before the big bang, an immense amount of matter was contained in a tiny space. The Hadron Collider experiments are designed to learn more about this.

The Big Bang was the introduction of all the information that comprises our universe at once. Since there are no other places in the natural world that we know of where information can completely disappear or reappear, then the Big Bang is most certainly an anomaly.

Mathematics suggests that it was the ignition of one of many similar universes, and such creation of universes is routine under some other conditions.

Looking into a microscope, and looking into a telescope, we see that there is no end. Things keep unfolding into sub-levels, and sub-sub-levels. Physicists thought the atom was the end, but the deeper they looked, they find even more mysteries and incomprehensible quantum functions.

Where does it go and why? It is a great and fascinating mystery. Our humanity compels us to search for the meaning of existence. Atheists generally, through science, can show that life has no meaning and we are insignificant. This can be corroborated by the clear lifelessness of the cosmos and the remoteness, and infinitesimal measurements taken by science through the ages.

Others, including Christians have an instinct that it is not so meaningless and reducible. That despite the apparent nature of things, as shown by science, there is still some unseen or higher power.

You’d do good if you sat and read a book other than the bible. Educate yourselves, get to know your “enemy” inside and out. Then, build your argument on facts, not shit you heard someone else say. Now, if you did that, you wouldn’t be Christian, would you?

Hundred years ago, few people were educated. Women had a dozen children each and many died in childbirth. Now, we have health care and education. Now we have freedom of (depending), and freedom from, religion. Life is improving. My hope is that life, health care, education, freedom of expression, will all improve. The overall quality of life will improve and more people will live with love and compassion.

Another idiotic argument you guys love recycling: Man did not come from monkeys; humans and apes share an ancient ancestor.

Just because we do not believe in Christianity doesn’t mean we have all the answers about the universe. It means that, unlike you, we are trying to find out on our own and move society forward with progress, instead of going through another Dark Ages that your religion caused.

Since we’re on the topic of nothing coming from nothing: Where is mommy and daddy god? Did your god come from nothing? Looks like it to me. Do they realize that science has yet to give an answer to where the matter came from? So since you don’t know there must be a god. If I ask you what created god. You will say nothing, he is eternal. Thus invoking the special pleading fallacy.

Someone said Christians don’t understand basic science, but I’d say they don’t understand how quantum mechanics works; which is hardly basic science. But then people won’t believe things if they can’t understand it, and saying God did it is a lot easier for Christians as well as other religious people in other religions to understand.

Advertisements

18 comments

  1. Thank you for this more specific perspective. I haven’t meant to oversimplify the atheist point of view. I do understand that atheists view the beginning of the universe with the same mystery a religious person might view the existence of God with. I am not meaning to reduce all of the evidence you have presented in regards to advancements so simply. It is refreshing that you admit that there are aspects of science that are still mysterious. I also understand that it is impossible to prove the response Christians have that God wasn’t created, but that He existed forever. But just as atheists are comfortable with the existing scientific mysterious, it is only reasonable to in turn be understanding of Christians choosing to believe their reasoning for life’s meaning and the beginning of the universe, and take into account the fact that their beliefs are coupled with human experience. I’d like to leave you with one fact I recently heard from Ravi Zacharias. A non-Christian quantum physicist from Cambridge (I regretfully didn’t catch his name) found that the chance of the enzymes necessary to create DNA coming together with the necessary environmental factors is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. Many physicists have concluded that it is a mathematical impossibility.

    Like

    1. EVERY scientist who is worth that name will tell you, that we don’t have all the answers. It’s an aspect of religion to invent simple answers from nowhere and claim it as eternal truth, no more questions needed. Science knows that it knows almost nothing and has to continue searching for better answers.

      The big difference is, that science has some facts, while Christianity cling to something someone wrote down 2.000 years ago. Science brought us to the moon – Religion brought us into the dark ages. Science wants to learn more, Religion is content with believing that everything is clear (“God did it!”). Science accepts that we’re pretty insignificant, religion wants to make us believe that the whole universe revolves around us.

      And let’s for a moment assume that your anecdote (without any quote, it’s not more than that) were correct – AND that the physicist was correct, which is, as we already have agreed upon, not a given – then you forget that there were a BILLION years and a whole planet for this process to take place. Winning the lottery is also unlikely, but if you live long enough, the chances will increase very much. And if billions of people play for a long time, it’s almost certain that someone will win. This is again nothing more than a straw, a “god of the gaps” argument – “We can’t explain that (yet), thus god.” Don’t go there, please. You will only face embarrassment when some scientists shows how that probably happened on earth – without requiring any god.

      Like

        1. Ad hominem. Worthless. The quality of an argument does (in most cases) not rely on the person making it. You could have tried to answer me. But if you expected me to follow every fringe blog with a lacking grasp on statistics? Sorry, nope.

          Like

        2. Lee, my argument was that the information provided in this article follows the same speculations that atheists use to try and disprove the existence of God. What “started” the “Big Bang?” How could something come from nothing? You said, “How do you know it’s not happening again? The universe is ENTIRELY TOO BIG for anyone to see. Your argument is invalid.” I challenge you too try it out. Go into an empty room and close the door. How long do you think it would take for something to come to life? The same thing is true for the earth. No matter how much time passes, a living being must be involved in creating life (2 humans, 2 animals, etc.). Please don’t get so angry, I am just making a statement for you to consider.

          Like

            1. Thanks for the thought provoking rebuttal, but it seems that your door for learning new/old things closed years ago. An open minded person will look at the different perspectives of each situation. Please educate me as to how something can come from nothing. I have not found that information anywhere. Thanks again!

              Like

          1. Atheists don’t try to disprove the existence of God. No more than trying to disprove the tooth fairy, or flying spaghetti monster. We just don’t believe it God, and have no reason to.

            Like

    2. With due respect, next time you argue a claim of impossible versus the possible using a nameless professor, please note that without a source for people to check, you’re argument becomes invalid.

      (And any scientist who says something is impossible, no matter what the statistics say is no scientist but just another human who has given up thinking ((or using a super computer)).

      Like

    3. Who is this scientist with no name? Listen, if you’re going to make asinine comments about things you think you know, it’s best to not come off as a total doucehbag and actually leave a reference to this study – a reputable one. Not some run-of-the-mill article you found on ‘The Onion.

      Thanks.

      Like

    4. wrong. Christians love to make up these huge odds to try and prove how impossible it is. I love how Christians try to resort to using science and mathematics to disprove science, but they never use it to explain their own position. There is ZERO evidence for their position. And Atheists are comfortable with scientific mysteries because we don’t see a problem saying “Idon’t know”. We don’t just use the argument from ignorance and just slap a God label on it.

      Like

  2. I find it funny to say that “atheists don’t believe that something came from nothing.” The reason I make this point is because of what is mentioned above, “No. Most Atheists believe in the science of the Big Bang, as explained by Einstein. Just before the big bang, an immense amount of matter was contained in a tiny space.” Did nothing create this matter? How did it get there? If an anomaly is the explanation of the big bang theory, then why hasn’t anything like it occurred again. No matter how much time passes, no living thing can come from a non-living thing.

    Like

    1. How do you know it’s not happening again? The universe is ENTIRELY TOO BIG for anyone to see. Your argument is invalid.

      I had to take a breather and then come back and respond to your nonsense.

      Like

    2. So, your god…created the sun on the fourth day…how in the fuck did four days pass? Thought so.

      You need to question your bible before questioning me.

      Like

    3. I believe the author said if you are going to be so ignorant to repeat the same arguments over and over to not bother reading or commenting. Yet this is exactly what you do. Did you not read it? Science can’t explain what happened right before the big bang. But that doesn’t mean your God claim is true. You have the same issues. Where did god come from? So it’s ok for you to just believe that he always existed yet you criticize science for saying something came from nothing? Even though that’s NOT what it says. You Christians are all the same.

      Like

  3. this was like reading a religious blogg. the universe came from a large amount of matter which exploded and lots of universes were created , mm despite the fact this is a theory(here presented as if its actual fact) that universes are created all the time lol oh god how funny you guys are making stuff up and trying to pretend its scientific. they used to say the big bang took a million then a thousand then 100 years then it was instant(looks like they have been reading their bibles. the truth is its impossible to know what when how or why the universe came into being. we were not there its beyond our comprehension so many unanswered questions out there.
    philosophy and religion give better answers than these quack scientists.
    THIS BLOG ISNT About science for sciences sake its a religious article taking a swipe at Christians, If evolution is a fact and not a religion why always attack religion.

    anyway your explanation of the universe is flawed for example where do the elements come from we dont know. How are stars formed.
    why do some planets move in the opposite direction to others. time and space were only created when the universe began so before the so called big bang time did not exist not as we know it. if something existed outside time and space then that thing would be eternal as time has no power over it.

    multiverse if it were true shows us different universes in time and space but it still doesnt tell us what happened before time and space existed.
    Why did the big bang happen in the first place. Universes are created all the time according to mathematics really.
    Must be some computer to know that. found this online let me know what you think.

    The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
    According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the “good” mutations and allows the others to pass away.

    Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

    For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily “mutate” (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates “downward,” then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

    Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

    But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be “one” followed by sixty “zeros.” In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular “parts.”

    The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth’s 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

    All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

    Like

Comments are closed.