New Atheist Graphic
I just saw the following graphic on Common Sense Atheism. It’s new to me, so forgive me if it’s really old:
This, of course, has it completely wrong. God always was, there was never a time when he didn’t exist. He has existed in eternity before time, before anything else ever was, and that renders the facetious argument of this graphic invalid. He didn’t come from nothing, he never “sprang into being.” He simply existed, always.
Posted on July 15, 2010, in God, Heresy, Humor, Theology and tagged atheism. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.
I understand the argument, but why? Why did he always exist? Why was he always there? Just because? Or is it a mystery we will never understand? As Stephen Hawking said, that’s a the greatest mystery of all…why something rather than nothing?
I don’t know if there is a “why,” but my personal feeling is that if you don’t start with God existing in eternity past, then you literally have no good reason why something exists rather than nothing in the material universe. God is a necessary being.
If nothing can’t burst into something (something not shown, though I’d say that I can’t conceive of the contrary), you’re right, maybe we have to have something that always existed. But why God (especially God as seen by the religious)?
Anyway, things can be very counter-intuitive (quantum mechanics is a good demonstration of that), they might discover something about nothingness that we wouldn’t grasp in our age…
But starting with God doesn’t answer the question, you still need to explain why there is God instead of nothing.
Actually, I don’t. I know that the universe isn’t eternal, and therefore it is only contingent. What I’m positing is a being that is necessary, not contingent. Without God in the picture, nothing can exist. YOU need to explain why the universe–which I’ve already demonstrated to have a contingent existence–exists without reason. You don’t believe that a necessary being is, well, necessary to explain the universe. That’s the fallacy I’m exposing–a necessar being (God) is necessary for the universe to exist.
You don’t know the universe isn’t eternal. You may believe the universe isn’t eternal, but you don’t know that it isn’t. The mere fact that you posit a being that is necessary, doesn’t necessarily mean such a being exists. You say you have demonstrated that the universe has a contingent existence, but you haven’t demonstrated any such thing. Simply stating it as if it were a fact doesn’t make it so.
Ironic, considering this is exactly what evolutionists do about evolution.
Science supports this notion. Since 1930, scientists have proven that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past. We don’t know what existed prior to that, but whatever did wouldn’t have a contingent existence. It would also have to be powerful enough to kick off the Big Bang, and it would have to have the volitional will to “decide” to kick start this great expanse we call the universe. Since the universe is material, the being in question would have to be immaterial. Also, since time and space wouldn’t have existed prior to the Big Bang, the being would also have to be timeless and spaceless.
By its nature, it must exist. This is the crux of the ontological argument.
Correct, but science has shown this to a reasonable prospect.
There is plenty of evidence to back-up evolution.
No, there is good evidence that the universe existed as a singularity at some point in the distant past.
I could posit a necessary one million dollars in my bank account, but my checks will still bounce.
Which is not the same as demonstrating it to actually be the case.
Maybe there was never a time the universe didn’t exist, either. Right now all we know is the all universe was wrapped up in a singularity at t=0. We can’t look before then and perhaps “before then” is a meaningless concept. Like “north of the north pole””.
“Anyway, things can be very counter-intuitive (quantum mechanics is a good demonstration of that), they might discover something about nothingness that we wouldn’t grasp in our age…”
Voilà…I guess Stephen Hawking answered that one, there MAY BE (not “is”, “may be”) something about nothingness that a non-physicist like me or you may not know about (I think the scientist had been saying something like that since a while now, people seem to be only picking up on it at this point, maybe because of his new book): nothing can become something through the laws of nature. Not saying I accept his (actually, their) explanation, but it does show that there are more “economical” (as would say Richard Dawkins) explanations for the “something came out of nothing” problem than a complex Creator who would not have come out of anything…
Of course, it’s logical to ask “why do the laws of physics exist in the first place?”, to which some would answer the same thing you answered me a while ago (above):
“I don’t know if there is a “why,” but my personal feeling is that if you don’t start with God existing in eternity past, then you literally have no good reason why something exists rather than nothing in the material universe. God is a necessary being.”
…of course replacing “God” with “the laws of physics” in wherever it appears…and accepting the fact that there was no past before the Big Bang, that time only started then (the consensus on that one from probably reliable sources forces me to accept it, I guess the claim about multiverses and spontaneous creation doesn’t have such support)…but I wouldn’t throw my hat in on that one, maybe there is need for something else, but then something else, and then something else…maybe there is still some other property of nothingness that we need to know, maybe it spontaneously creates the laws of nature…but that would be due to another law of nature which would need creation, héhé, another problem…but you have to see that the God explanation is more complicated here…
Maybe one day, believing God had to created the universe will be tantamount to believing in Creationism instead of evolution…and maybe that day isn’t too far away…