Simple Case for God

133 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mason Moore's picture
I'm no physics major; in fact

I'm no physics major; in fact, a high school senior. But the argument produced by Hawking for a universe that requires no matter or force to come into existence seems ludicrous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to state universes are being created all the time, either from other universes colliding or from nothing at all. What is the motive force for a universe to be created? How can no matter, energy, or force drive a universe to be formed? It goes beyond any knowledge of physics I, at least, possess, and into a theory involving something we don't yet understand. I know time is a factor in it, with universes supposedly being eternal, but time cannot create, and according to some arguments, time began with universes, which are deemed eternal. I'm assuming this is the proven theory you meant. As for God 'fitting the description,' I meant the God of the bible describes the type of supernatural force needed to create our universe, instead of an impersonal force or a multitude of deitys.

CyberLN's picture
"the argument produced by

"the argument produced by Hawking for a universe that requires no matter or force to come into existence seems ludicrous. "

So, you are not a scientist but you propose that what this scientist (Hawking) who has worked the math, says is ludicrous? I find that so fascinating! You have no problems with someone surviving time in a whale belly, food falling from the sky, talking donkeys, and so many other fantastic things, but not things for which there is evidence.

You do not, by your own admission, understand physics. Why, then, without that understanding, do you presume to call it ludicrous ? You call it ludicrous and replace it with your god. I find that just so egotistical.

Mason Moore's picture
A deeper understanding of

A deeper understanding of physics doesn't give someone the right to deny the basic principles of it. All of his theories, as far as I've read, are unprovable by testing, and so remain a theory, similar to the accusations against God's case. It only seems common sense a universe can't come from no matter or energy, and even if it could, what triggered it? A force outside of any concept of time and space? One that can not only perform miracles as you listed inside the universe its created, but actually create a universe from nothing in the first place?

The 'bubble' theory, whatever you want to call it, may explain to the atheist that its possible to have a universe come from nothing (their only plausible explanation for reality besides an infinite universe theory), but it fails to explain why it occurs.

That's the question of existence, why; its already evident enough that reality is occuring, so a theory like that provides no answers. Why are we here? Because an effect without a cause, by the slightest chance, created us beings who seek to find the answer? What natural cause could have existed outside of a universe to create one?

Dave Matson's picture


Why would a deeper understanding of physics lead one to deny the basic principles of it? You're talking nonsense! How universes might have arisen is indeed speculation, but it is speculation guided by the principles of nature, speculation by the brightest minds on the subject. This is far superior than religious speculation which has nothing to do with the established principles of nature. By the way, physics has reached a deep level where common sense no longer applies. Common sense is based on what we see in our everyday world, and modern physics considers realms far removed from such experience.

If a vacuum with quantum fluctuations is as "nothing" as reality can get, then your "absolute, philosophical nothing" was never in the picture. "Something" (from the philosophical, absolute viewpoint) had to have always existed. From that kind of "nothing" universes might, indeed, be capable of arising from time to time.

No God creator is needed. We are here, if that is correct, because quantum fluctuations within a vacuum (that being as "nothing" as reality can get) gave rise to universes from time to time and some of those universes are capable of eventually producing life, and on occasion life can evolve beyond simple forms to high levels of intelligence.

Mason Moore's picture
I want to sum up this

I want to sum up this conversation:

My argument:
-Something exist
-Something cannot come from nothing
-Therefore, a necessary something must have always existed
-The universe is further being found to have a beginning
-Therefore, with the universe being finite, an eternal Creator or force outside of space-time is necessary

-The universe has always existed according to theories
-The closest possible thing to nothing; a vacuum; according to physics, is able to spontaneously create universes ( with quantum fluctuations.)

This would mean, as you said, no Creator is necessary. I see the logic. With there never being 'nothing' in the first place, some kind of energy or force has always existed able to create matter, energy, and life (else the claim is an effect without a cause.) Are quantum fluctuations that force? Ill do research but please give me your description of it.

Dave Matson's picture


No doubt you can find Internet sites on the subject, but to really understand it means going down a long, long road on the esoteric side of physics. "Quantum mechanics" would be one key word. Cosmology would be another. I don't know of any easy path.

bigbill's picture
in physics as stated by

in physics as stated by william craig something called particles can come from nothing so the old age question is there god is still undetermined we just don`t have the answers yet.but one thing i would state is if god why evil and suffering in the world.and how did evil come about?the 6th century philosopher epicures stated this maxim.

Dave Matson's picture


Morality is mainly just knowing how to treat one another to get along in a social setting. Cultural evolution adds its own twist on top of that, some of it random, as do powerful individuals and the various needs of the society as a whole. At its best, morality is generalized beyond the tribal level. As for meaning, why can't it be the result of a mind (which evolved for other reasons) imposing its own meaning on things? Human brains evolved to find patterns, whether they exist or not. Patterns were extremely important for survival. Attaching living forces to movement probably meant survival in that you had a little extra time to do something before the tiger showed itself. Thus, a god hurled lightening, and rivers were powerful beings. "Meaning" is simply how we make sense out of the world.

Seenyab4's picture
Would you happen to be

Would you happen to be familiar with it, so you may explain it? It intrigued me that it was already proven, but upon researching it, the entire page was just filled with atheist vs Christian arguements. Nothing was solely about Hawkings' research, and it seemed biased anyways.

AlwaysAlli's picture
Exactly how did Steven

Exactly how did Steven Hawking prove that something can come from nothing? And what scientists proved he was correct? If you're going to speak about proof, I would at least like some specific relevant evidence to back up general claims like "science has proven..."

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Machoke

@ Machoke

Here goes my analysis of the argument.

The argument sounds good, but if you start to analyse it thoroughly, it falls apart. First, it makes use of loaded words.

- "Something cannot be created from nothing"

The word "created" implies a "creator". It's simple word play.
The word constructed has the same effect: "Something cannot be constructed from nothing", implying a constructor to do the constructing, but of course the word created and creator sounds much better and works nicely together with creation.

If you were to use other words in stead of "created", it loses the connection to the next statement. For example:

"Something cannot begin to exist out of nothing"
"Something cannot spawn out of nothing"
"Something cannot form from nothing"

Now the next statement doesn't seem connected as it was before:
- "This means an eternal universe or an eternal Creator."

Secondly, it's poorly constructed logic. As I said, it sounds good. Because it sounds logical and correct when you hear it. Just removing loaded words makes a difference.

But if we for arguments sake assume that each of the statements are correct, it's not logically formed. I'll simplify the argument and I'll replace significant parts with representing letters:

S = Something, U = Universe, C = Creator.

1. S exists and cannot begin to exist out of nothing.
3. This means that an eternal S must exist, else the U was created from nothing.
4. This means an eternal U or an eternal C.

I'll remove the "Universe from nothing"-parts, since you reject it anyway and to get rid of extra "or"-cases.

1. S exists and cannot begin to exist out of nothing.
2. An eternal S must exist.
3. This means an eternal C.

There is no logical step to get to point 3. Where did that C come from?
And that was given

1. Something exists, yes. But perhaps S does not need to have a beginning? Claiming that it absolutely does, seems a bit arrogant to me. What if S just shifts from one state into another state, like matter into energy?

2. To be able to say that an eternal S exist, we must be sure that part 1 is correct. Even if we assume that it is, "eternal" is a diffuse concept. According to the Big Bang Theory, space and time is connected and was both began to exist at the beginning of the Universe. As some people say, what was before the Big Bang? I usually ask: "How do you mean before? Time began when then the Universe began."
The human brain is not equipped to handle concepts like "nothingness", "eternity", "infinity" and it's not equipped to understand extremely large quantities, like the amount of known galaxies or the amount of stars in the Milky Way.

3. The eternal C just pops up from nothing, as it were. (Irony alert! :)

I certainly don't see any reason to insert a supernatural entity into this or any other argument.

Mason Moore's picture
You're saying the universe

You're saying the universe exists on its own terms. It didn't necessarily always exists, and didn't create itself. So what's left? As you said, its hard or impossible to grasp the universe not in existence; a void, if even that. That 'nothing' I keep bringing up is that 'void.' This means the universe has to have always existed in one way or another, even as a ball of mass or energy. It could not fabricate from something even beyond our understanding of 'nothing.' As science will tell us, the universe indeed had a beginning, unless theories like the Crunch theory are correct. This would mean the universe is infinite, and no God would be necessary. This brings me to the other side of the argument, that a universe with no Creator should not have rules of physics and such, nor beings that are searching for purpose and full of it as ourselves. Perhaps science can explain the latter in some way, but I find a Creator more reasonable, judging on what has been made.

Dave Matson's picture


Why would an infinite being even have an interest in humanity? Do you take a deep, personal interest in the microbes on the bottom of your shoes? Why should a universe with no creator have no rules of physics? Such rules are not independent entities in need of creation but rather constitute a description as to how the universe operates. Do the rules associated with right triangles require a creator?

Mason Moore's picture
God made us in His image, and

God made us in His image, and wanted to share His love with us. We are His children, and like any father, He wants what's best for us. Being made in His image is what gave us such unique features not found in 'natural' beings, animals (like morality, self-awareness, and love.) As for rules of the universe, it doesn't click with me that a universe created with no example, force, or mind has such fine tuning. Perhaps science is waiting for an answer on that, or draws it up to chance.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Machoke

@ Machoke

- "You're saying the universe exists on its own terms."

No, I try to avoid saying "how it is" to others.
But I am suggesting alternatives to the when-in-doubt-insert-God way of thinking.

I'm perfectly content with not knowing the answer to questions like "how did the universe begin?" and "how did life start?". I'm curious, and if we get the answers some day, I would be very interested in trying to understand it. But I feel no need at all to insert an assumed answer, when we don't know.

- "So what's left?"

Why not just accept that "We don't know"?
Why is there a need to insert an assumed answer?

- "a universe with no Creator should not have rules of physics and such, nor beings that are searching for purpose and full of it as ourselves."

Why not? Just because you don't understand how that could be, doesn't mean it's false. And just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean a god must be inserted to force an answer.

I fully understand that you "find a Creator more reasonable". It's a very human way of thinking. We anthropomorphize very easily, and assume human like qualities where there are none: Add imagined feelings in inanimate objects, and add malicious intent to disease, etc.

But essentially, you're just filling the gaps of knowledge with a god. Earlier, people thought diseases where caused by demons or god, they thought the Earth was placed by god in the centre of the our solar system. Gradually the gaps where people need to insert a supernatural solution are disappearing and moving outwards.
Right now, it's at the beginning of the Universe and other boundaries that science haven't moved past (and perhaps may never be able to move past, like death).

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson:

"If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."

[Edited for clarity]

Mason Moore's picture
Those questions that can't be

Those questions that can't be answered are growing; questions beyond our understanding. You can say "I don't know," and go into age-old questions such as after death with your fingers crossed, which leads me to believe you don't want a God to exist. We know a lot, and few things can be drawn up to religion, but those few things are the biggest questions. I doubt, in your lifetime, science would answer any of these if it were possible. Not to say you should believe "just in case," as that sort of faith is dead. If you question your own morality, and the fact that you can even do so, I think you'll realize you're beyond scientific explanation.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Machoke

@ Machoke

- "Those questions that can't be answered are growing; questions beyond our understanding."

That is quite possible.
This leads me directly to one of my arguments against the finite eternal creator: Each time we make a discovery, new questions pop up. Inserting a god as some sort of finite answer is only a way to rationalize those big questions, to make it easier to cope with them. Accepting that some questions don't have answers yet, is another.

- "You can say "I don't know," and go into age-old questions such as after death with your fingers crossed..."

Yes, but every believer does the very same thing!
What if you are part of an incorrect denomination of Christianity? There are quite a few you know.

What if Hasidic Judaism is the correct religion?
What if Zoroastrian Mazdakism is the right one?
Or Shaykhism Shia Islam?
Swaminarayan Hinduism?
Karma Kagyu Buddhism?
Orthodox Bahá'í Faith?
Sahajdhari Sikhism?
Or maybe the Aztec religion or Maya religion were correct?

Richard Dawkins answered the question "What if you're wrong?" brilliantly:

So the question I think you should ask yourself is: "What makes me sure I have the right religion and denomination?"

I don't want to put pressure on you to defend your faith. I only want to show people the questions they should be asking themselves. I am interested to hear about it, but you don't have to defend your faith publicly.

If I were you, I would wonder:
Why do I believe what I believe? Instead of becoming a Muslim or a Sikh, what made me a Christian?

Mason Moore's picture
Most of the arguments I've

Most of the arguments I've made are for a Creator of the universe, with no specifics. The case for the biblical God is in what's already existing; a case for the cause by its effect. I know little to nothing about other religions and their beliefs, so some of them may have their explanations of the things we experience that make sense in a smaller picture. We know if there's a Creator, He is eternal, immaterial, loving (He created beings capable of loving,) basically share the qualities of humans, for we are His 'effect.' He is good because He has given us good qualities, yet has given us the choice of good and evil (we are born into evil, after the first sin, but still choose it.) He is merciful, because He is good, yet we choose against Him, against our own good. I can continue, and all these qualities we can infer about Him from ourselves fits the biblical God.

If the argument isn't in the answers to the universe for religion, then it's in ourselves; if a God is real, then we can infer a lot about Him from ourselves.

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Machoke

@ Machoke

- "Most of the arguments I've made are for a Creator of the universe, with no specifics."

Yes, I made it very clear that I'm aware of that, in my first answer to you.
I only answered your assumption about how someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife views death, by showing you that all believers do that too in regards to all other religions and their respective competing denominations.

- "I know little to nothing about other religions and their beliefs"

Okay. But do you assume that yours is the right one?

- "We know if there's a Creator, He is eternal, immaterial, loving..."

How could you possibly say that you know such a thing?

Are you even reading the responses you get? You skip over all questions, and instead launch a new set of cliché claims of knowledge about matters of faith.

- "if a God is real, then we can infer a lot about Him from ourselves."

When you say "a" god, do you mean any god? It sounds a lot like you're actually talking about the Abrahamic god. Not all gods created humans in "his" image. What god are you referring to?

chimp3's picture
Machine: I don' t know what

Machoke: I don' t know what bible you have been reading but the god of the Judeo\Christian\Islamic faiths is not good and merciful. He is a fucking prick. Jealous, vengeful, genocidal, and mysogonistic. Just like the people who created him in their own image.
Personally, my moral principles are superior to god's and the biblical characters. And I am a chimp.

jdrose's picture
The Resonance Principle

The Resonance Principle

The physical universe was intelligently created when an infinitely small piece of infinite matter was infused with an infinite energy. The matter fragmented into identical bits with infinite potential size infused with varied amounts of the infinite energy which exists within matter and fills all space between bits of matter. Any bit containing any amount of energy is part of our physical universe. The two coexsist but are only physical through interaction. I have named the Matter "Orb" and the energy "Resonance". Knowledge gained through observation demonstrates that all matter is in a state of circular or spherical motion on a universe scale. All energy contained within matter exerts a spherical outward force. Two constant opposing forces manifest the observed states and potential states of matter. They produce Orb vibration, Orb density-weight, Orb spin on axis (magnetism-magnetic field), Orb curlicue linear vector motion (wavelength). Matter and Energy seek to recombine into their primordial states before "The Great Infusion" that is currently called the Big Bang. Orbs seek to shrink and Resonance seeks to expand (escape from Orbs). The two forces are Attraction and Repulsion. They cause motion. Orbs are containers that gain or lose Resonance through absorption or excretion. Resonance can not enter or leave Orbs of its own accord. When Orbs touch they can exchange Resonance. They can gain or lose Resonance by deformation due to collision. Orbs are elastic and capable of infinite physical size. Their physical size is relative to the amount of Resonance they absorb. Orbs have a constant amount of matter. Their physical density is relative to the varied amount of Resonance they can contain. In this principle the ratio of Resonance to Orb defines all physical characteristics such as weight, density, size, wave length, gravity, temperature etc. The Resonance Principle describes a beautiful simplicity that produces mind boggling possibilities and defines a natural structure that can be augmented by human intervention.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I guess you missed my post

I guess you missed my post about that site where I commented about a small part of the non-sense there. But reading your post I see more::
The following statement is extremely problematic: In this principle the ratio of Resonance to Orb defines all physical characteristics such as weight, density, size, wave length, gravity, temperature etc.. For the sake of argument, let's assume everything up to this point was correct.
The weight of an object is not a property of the object (if it was; a person would weigh the same on the Moon as they do on the Earth). It is the product of its mass and the local acceleration of gravity. Therefore it is impossible to determine the weight of an object by considering the properties of the object alone. But that is exactly what you just told us you could do.
It gets worse; you have some very serious dimensional problems with the ratio R/O (Resonance/Orbs):

  • |R/O| = |weight| = M*T-2
  • |R/O| = |density| = M*L-3
  • |R/O| = |size| = L3
  • |R/O| = |wavelength| = L
  • |R/O| = |temperature| = Θ

You may notice that each statement contradicts all the others. This means that at most only one of those statements can be true. This is a shockingly simple error. One that university physics students are taught to spot on the very first day of class.
/e For those of us who haven't had the luxury of studying this; it is essentially a more formal version of the adage that you can not equate apples and oranges.

jdrose's picture


I am NOT "the artist" but Mr. Physics student,

The only contradiction is in your brain.

Gravity is the strength of the orb force of attraction. On the moon the attractive force (gravity) is 1/6 that on Earth. Everything else is constant. That's why people are "weightless" in space because there is (relatively) no gravity in a (relative) vacuum because no vacuum is absolute.

Its all interaction of conglomerate orbs. The earth is a conglomeration of orbs, as is the moon and a human, and a tea cup, and a blood cell and a drop of water. each has its own "combined field of influence", from the smallest to the largest objects.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Seeker - That's why people

Seeker - That's why people are "weightless" in space because there is (relatively) no gravity...

Actually that is false (another simple physics fail). In orbit around the Earth there is plenty of gravity, almost as much as there is on the surface of the Earth (the gravitational acceleration from the Earth at the International Space station is about 90% as strong as it is on the surface of the Earth).
OK I'll make my complaint simpler. You said "the ratio of Resonance to Orb defines all physical characteristics such as weight, density, size, wave length, gravity, temperature".

Let's say I have an object that has a Resonance/Orb ratio of 7. According to what you wrote: that should be enough information for you to tell me its temperature, size, and weight. Please do so.

/e You might notice that this question is a trap. Let's say the answer is temperature = 20C, size = 1 cubic meter, weight = 2 Newtons. This answer (or any other) is going to get you into trouble very quickly. Since the R/O ratio of 7 mapped to all 3 of those values, it would mean that all objects that are 20C in temperature have an R/O ratio of 7. Which means that all objects of the same temperature must have the same size and weight! So with what you have stated in this thread, an penny at 20C temperature has the same size and weight as an aircraft carrier at 20C temperature. This is a big problem for this "principle".

jdrose's picture
So I'm in my no doubt

So you're on the moon in a space suit, body temp is same as on earth, but your weight is 1/6. This has nothing to do with density so your trap is specious. For weightlessness in space, if u free floated a scale to the astronaut and it pressed against his body the weight would register as zero because they are in the same condition in space, with everything that means . The dividing line of matter is the neutron, which is like a mini-solar system, electrons and protons orbiting each other. Why do neutron's mass equal an electron's mass plus a proton's mass? Yet science knows least about them.

If you don't believe matter was created, you can never understand. As irrational as Trump haters,

Nyarlathotep's picture
Seeker - This has nothing to

Seeker - This has nothing to do with density so your trap is specious.

Notice you say it is specious but you didn't actually answer the question. Please answer the question.

Seeker - Why do neutron's mass equal an electron's mass plus a proton's mass?

It doesn't. High-school math fail!

  • 1.6726231 * 10-27 kg (proton)
  • 0.0009109 * 10-27 kg (electron)
  • 1.6749286 * 10-27 kg (neutron)

You'll notice it takes about 2.5 electrons (plus a proton) to equal the mass of a neutron.
Additionally it isn't possible for just an electron and a proton to form a neutron since that would be a violation of the conservation of lepton number:

0 (lepton number of proton) + 1 (lepton number of electron) ≠ 0 (lepton number of neutron). Another math fail.

jdrose's picture


I'm the first to admit I'm not perfect on the masses. I made an assumption, because I knew a neutron is heavier than a proton, but I never did the math. So its 2.5 electrons. My bad. But that doesn't negate

There is one basic particle, the orb, with varying degrees of resonance/energy, each of which we call by a different name. A proton is an orb with "positive spin" and an electron is an orb with "negative spin" or charge The closer the resonance levels, (a strong proton and a weak electron) then the orbs will become neutrons and orbit each other, The neutron is the dividing line between "positive" and "negative" and the different states of neutron rotation in an atom cause magnetism, diamagnetism, non-magnetism, etc.

A proton and an electron each have a resonance level (range) that can make them "strong" or "weak". Keep injecting a proton with more resonance and it morphs into an electron and then a photon which is a hyperexcited electron and so on.

A particle accelerator can accelerate as close to two orbs (or so) from opposite directions in a purest (never totally pure) of vacuum , but they hit like billiard balls and are deflected, and that is what is measured and taken to be different subatomic particles.. From a cursory research of LEPTONS

from Wikipedia: " Electrons have the least mass of all the charged leptons. The heavier muons and taus will rapidly change into electrons and neutrinos through a process of particle decay: the transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state. Thus electrons are stable and the most common charged lepton in the universe, whereas muons and taus can only be produced in high energy collisions (such as those involving cosmic rays and those carried out in particle accelerators)."

Particle decay is the release of resonance. And not all "leptons" have the same mass. As for "conservation of lepton number" , lets just say, the exotic sub atomic particle theories are just that theories. I am not at liberty to say more because this isn't my rightful battle.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Seeker - Keep injecting a

Seeker - Keep injecting a proton with more resonance and it morphs into an electron and then a photon which is a hyperexcited electron and so on.

Just off the top of my head that violates:

  • Conservation of lepton number
  • Conservation of baryon number
  • Conservation of electric charge
  • Conservation of linear momentum
  • Special Relativity

So it is just more non-sense to throw onto the rubbish heap.

That one guy's picture
I am kind of at a loss here.

I am kind of at a loss here. There is so much wrong with this statement. Narylotep. I'm inclined to agree with you and just call it rubbish and move on. About the only thing correct is the direct quote from wikipedia but that doesn't really have much bearing on anything else you had to say. Also please stop calling them orbs that is veeery incorrect.

watchman's picture
Aahhh.......the return of

Aahhh.......the return of "the Artist".....


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.