Skip to main content


By Ben Love ~
“How can something come from nothing?”
This is the statement made to me time and time again when I discuss the possibility of a godless Cosmos with believers. They speak this statement as though it is the end-all, be-all trump card of all time. But is it?
Usually, this statement is made in reference to the fact that it is difficult to imagine, even for the staunchest of atheists, that the Universe came from nothing, that [nothing] + [time] = [everything]. I get that. I am an atheist, and this is a difficult concept for me to accept. I don’t deny that. But grappling with difficult concepts as opposed to easy concepts is not the measuring stick for how unlikely a given idea is. And yet I do concede that while I subscribe to a godless Cosmos, I am at a loss to sufficiently explain it. (But at least I don’t deny that.)
Having said all of this, why should it be that attaching the “God solution” to the problem makes it any easier to swallow? Who says that inserting God into the gap suddenly makes all the complications go away? The truth is this: the “God solution” does nothing. Allow me to demonstrate…
If we were to observe that it makes no sense to believe matter can spontaneously exist where matter did not previously exist, and that nothing or no one caused the matter to suddenly exist, we would be right to observe it. But wouldn’t we be just as right to observe that it makes no sense to believe a God can exist without ever having need of a beginning? Which makes more or less sense: 1) that the Universe came from nothing, or 2) that God has always existed? Why is it deemed intellectually ridiculous to attribute a godless origin to the Universe but not deemed intellectually ridiculous to attribute eternality to God?
Furthermore, which sounds more trustworthy to you, that 1) scientific discoveries of new data continue to shed light on the mysterious origins of our Universe, and while we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle, we are beginning to get a sense of the writing on the wall; or that 2) an invisible being whose existence we believe in through faith made everything we see? If you ask me, both come with their problems, and yet one feels much more responsible than the other does.
Moreover, why do the believers fuss about needing a sufficient answer to how a godless Cosmos could exist, but not fuss about needing a sufficient answer as to how an eternal God can exist? Isn’t it because one question serves their purpose while the other does not? I would think a truly respectable approach would be to demand the same standard in each case. If the believers pronounce a godless Cosmos as illogical, why don’t they take it a step further and pronounce that a God with no beginning is just as illogical? I simply fail to understand why a Universe with no creator is unacceptable while a God with no creator is perfectly acceptable. I think the truth is that they fail to understand this too, but they’re going to dig their heels in all the same.
How can something come from nothing?Personally, I tire from having to point this out over and over again. It’s not unlike trying to explain to toddlers why a toy should be shared. You can’t reason with a toddler about social justice and appropriate behavior and moral correctness. You’re simply dealing with concepts above and beyond the toddlers capabilities. And so it is with believers on this issue. The idea of their God is so ingrained within their mentalities that they fail to see the double standard that exists here. You could shout in their face about it all day and they will never see it. You could write books and essays and articles and blogs about it and they will never admit the hypocrisy. They will never see, because they are simply unable, that an eternal God is just as problematic is a godless Universe.
So who is right? If both stances strain credibility, how does a curious spectator know which direction to take? The answer is quite simple: Evidence. It always comes back to evidence. Always, always, always. What is the evidence for God compared to the scientific evidence for a godless Cosmos? One requires belief in the invisible; the other requires confidence in a method. One asks you to believe in an uncertainty; the other asks that you make conclusions as you go, conclusions based on that for which the evidence has made you certain. One is open to interpretation and, as such, can produce a wide array of disagreements and disparities; the other forces all people from all backgrounds to arrive at the same destination.

How can something come from nothing, you ask? My answer is this: I have no fucking idea. That is why I am not certain that something came from nothing. I have held off on make a definitive claim. The jury, for me, is still out. Now, it’s your turn. How can something exist without ever having need of a beginning? Isn’t this question just as important as the one you asked me? But you're not going to answer it, are you? No, I didn't think so. And yet, you will still make your definitive claims, won't you? Yeah, I thought so. Tsk, tsk, tsk...


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not