Well, this is the only thread about this stuff today that hasn't sounded [i]too much[/i] like bait, so I'll give you a serious response. [quote]"Nothing created something, which lead to the creation of everything" What the atheist argument sounds like. [/quote] I can understand why you'd label it an atheist argument through association, but it's not an argument out of atheism. Secondly, we know things within the universe to typically follow causality, however we cannot say we know the same for things predating whatever creation event you subscribe to, simply because we have no objective knowledge of what went on "then". For all we know, everything outside of the universe is acausal. So again, it's not an argument from Atheism. The only people that are asserting with absolute certainty that something arose from nothing, are just as bad as the theists asserting that whatever god they believe in created everything with absolute certainty. [quote]Check out this article about the scientific theories of creation and how it can contradict science itself. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4584[/quote] I don't think I've ever ran across a link to an apologetic site that didn't end up either wrong, wasted my time because it ended up coming from a troll, wasted my time because it talked about things I've already reviewed myself, or any mixture of the three. So if you could provide me a summarization, I'd appreciate it. [quote]Atheism is the belief that there is no God. They believe that there is no God because they oppose Faith.[/quote] No, that's what we'd call a strawman argument. People do not believe in deities for a variety of reasons, and while an opposition to faith is one of those, it is not the sole reason for each atheist. It'd be similar to me saying that every theist believes in a deity simply because they're scared of death, which obviously is not true. [quote]Yet it is impossible for an atheist to truly confirm that there is no God because their eyes and experience is limited by life on earth and earthly science, they have not seen all the areas of the universe and the realms of existence to PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.[/quote] I think you're associating atheism with strictly "strong atheism", and not the small variety it comes in. Strong atheism suggests what you just assumed there, which is that there is no god. "Soft atheism", much like agnosticism (it's pretty much agnosticism honestly, but you're not an agnostic without being atheist really, it's a weird spot where definitions overlap. Some people aren't comfortable with it.) is simply that people are not convinced a deity exists. They aren't making the assertion that they don't exist. [quote]If God can't be seen than He must not exist....If God is unseen, does that mean He does not exist? Absolutely not. The atheist best answer to the existence of God should not be "No" but rather I do not "Know". [/quote] A bit strawman-ish again, but nothing really revolutionary here regardless. [quote]Think about that... [/quote] Bit of a side note: I find it funny that many theistic arguments have this exact sentence in them. It's almost like you have some sort of literal playbook to take notes out of before you venture out and try to "save the damned." [quote]So I believe that the energy quite possibly was not created but rather "exerted" by God. [/quote] For which there is, at best, nearly equal to or clearly less proof for this argument compared to any creation hypothesis based within science. I think the summary of your post would go as follows: - Make some strawmen. - Gather misinformed details. - Make a conclusion, but do not back up the conclusion. Work on those, and you might get something.

Christian argument: there's an old book that says he exists so he must! Do you also believe in Cinderella?

If you think atheist don't believe because we can't see him/her then you might want to learn a bit of science and understand others before making a inaccurate judgment as you just did

Something doesn't have to been seen to know it exists. In a [i]scientific[/i] perspective, not an atheistic, although they may align for many atheists, existence is determined by measurability. Give me one example of a measurable act of God. Either way, what you are saying is [i]not[/i] the atheistic argument. You don't understand what atheism is, and you are generalizing it. Furthermore, the argument you mention is also flawed, and is most likely not the case. Me, you, or anyone else do not know what "nothing" is. IMO, It is not the "absence of something" because that would scale it to something in existence, therefor making it something. Rather, nothing is just nothing. There's no comparability because, well, we have never encountered "nothing". It's just simply not there. The argument isn't that something came from nothing, rather that something just simply was always there. Regardless, the believability of something coming from a God is only brought upon by tradition, ancient scriptures, and Sunday school. Impressionability over thousands of years if you will. There is no other thing that distinguishes it from "something coming from nothing" or "something always existing" other than personal believability. A quote by Betrand Russell, from which I am deriving the above logic from: [quote]Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time[/quote] In addition to this, Atheism is not the belief there is no God, it is the lack of a belief in a God. Call it nitpicky, but this distinction is very important to understand what atheism is. If it were a belief that there was no god, that would contradict what atheism is, because it would put God in the field of actuality, and say that atheists [i]deny[/i] this actuality, which is simply not true. Show me anything that will show God in actuality. Rather, atheists [i]lack[/i] a belief in the idea. Lacking a belief does not put said belief into actuality.

It its impossible to prove God does not exist. It [i]is[/i] possible to prove God exists. However, that does not mean He does exist. If He doesn't, it would be impossible to prove it, even if it was true. It's also impossible to prove He does exist, if God does not. So we're stuck in this loop unless He is proved to exist. So, there will always be religion. Always.

We do not know what existed prior to the Big Bang but due to the laws of thermodynamics we know it must be something.

Nothing is just the absence of something.

If Nothing wasn't a thing, then you wouldn't be able to think about it.