Comments (6)

All Trinitonian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • E

    Eric BreauxJul 12, 2018 at 4:18 pm

    Something can’t come from nothing because nothing is required for there to be nothing. Something existing would then be a change from there being nothing to there being something, but if there is nothing, there is nothing that can change. And if something from nothing were possible then so many different types of things would have always been spontaneously existing, some of them doing or causing the same things possibly. Likewise with things that are the same and any amount of them potentially doing and causing different things, since if a cause is unnecessary, there is nothing to prevent this being possible. The requirements for science, then, would not exist, since nothing would have to be a certain way to cause a specific result from it.
    Particles coming in and out of empty space can’t be evidence for something from nothing, because empty space is still space which is still something, or else there would be nothing for those particles to exist in. Empty space and vacuums have a minimal amount of energy in them to produce these particles, have dimensions that can bend and be measured, and the amount of energy, that obviously can also be measured, can change. This is all only possible because of how already existing physics make it so, so not only can nothing not be seen or tested to verify the possibility of it, but nothing is by definition what does not exist, so there being nothing is as self contradictory as there being no such thing as truth.
    Nothing can have a beginningless infinite past because it would take an infinite amount of time for anything to happen then, so nothing ever would because there never would be that much time. So for anything to exist there has to be something or someone to cause them. The only type of entity that could cause the first beginning would have to be independent of time and space.

  • T

    Tony K.Mar 28, 2018 at 5:41 pm

    My counter-questions: What specific evidence would make you believe in Gods (plural)? How about the idea that the entire universe is a manifestation of the dharmakaya (the eternal indestructible True Principle of Buddhism)?

  • G

    Greg RyanMar 2, 2018 at 9:02 am

    Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

    I believe if “the Church” went about preaching, teaching and healing it would be much more difficult to have a realistic discussion on atheism.

    When Jesus was walking, preaching, teaching and healing the argument wasn’t this isn’t happening or never happens it was whether or not He was truly the Son of God.

    I believe the disciples of Jesus need to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead and cast out demons (Matthew 10:8). Then this conversation would either end or take a totally different turn.

  • B

    Bill ThackerMar 1, 2018 at 9:33 am

    “[Alexander Jacobs’ argued that the universe points to the existence of God because, “The beginning of the universe was the beginning of all space, time and matter, [so] its cause must transcend these.””

    As an atheist, I can agree with that. The appearance of our universe implies something greater that produces such events. It’s evidence for *something*, but how is it rational to leap to the conclusion that something must be God?

    If theists are happy to assume God always existed and don’t question how God originated, I can be content to assume that the Big Bang always existed (it did, after all, initiate the very concept of “time”) and not know how it originated. And I can take comfort that my curiosity about the cause of the Big Bang is purely intellectual; it doesn’t stem from some need to validate dubious beliefs, stemming from bronze-age myths, that my parents instilled in me when I was a child.

  • R

    Robert LandbeckMar 1, 2018 at 6:34 am

    The question “What specific evidence would make you believe in God?” has a profound new answer! The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the ‘promise’ of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

    Thus ‘faith’ becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His ‘Word’ of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, “correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.” Thus is a man ‘created’ in the image and likeness of his Creator.

    So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists, and carries all the implications that suggests. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at

    • M

      Michael McElroyMar 8, 2018 at 12:09 pm

      Well now! That was delightfully insane.

Activate Search
On atheism and reason