The Atheist Blogger

From a comment:

Arrogant Atheists,

Nothing can only create Nothing. Before the universe began, something must have always existed. And it is called Energy. Energy is eternal. The first law of thermodynamics confirms that.

The law states: “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”. No beginning or uncreated and no end. That’s the definition of “ETERNAL”. You also can’t claim that this energy always existed in the known universe because science has proven that the universe didn’t always exist. Stephen Hawking once said: “The universe and time didn’t always exist”.

This energy source that was present BEFORE the universe began had to have power beyond anything we can even begin to imagine, considering it had to transfer it’s energy unto the trillions of stars and billions of galaxies. A separate ETERNAL energy source that exists OUTSIDE of the universe had to have supplied or transferred it’s energy unto the universe (because we know the universe didn’t always exist) It is not unreasonable to assume this ENORMOUS energy was the creator GOD. Listen atheists, we reasonably have to options to determine what WAS this powerful always existing energy. It could be a dumb, unconscious and vague energy source. (However this seems extremely illogical considering that we can observe complexity, order, and design throughout the universe.) The most logical answer would be that an intelligent mind constructed the universe, or a GOD. It’s as simple as that.

If you can’t agree with this logic then you’re stubborn, unreasonable, and don’t want to believe in the possible existence of GOD.”

When I sit down to write an article, I do research. Unless my article is written from a purely philosophical angle, I usually look up and check the facts. I also do research when writing responses to comments such as this one, but the writer of this comment, “Costiliani”, had not done research at all. In fact, he (I’m assumed male just for ease) had lifted the entire comment out of a video he had come across on YouTube. This one to be precise. So it seems that my response to Costilani will also be to the maker of the video as well (who knows, they could even be the same person).

In the video, the supposed source of the Hawking comment is made (http://hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html). However, not once in the entire lecture did he say the words “The universe and time didn’t always exist”. I know for a fact that Hawking believes the universe winked into existence all by itself at some point, but the creator of the video seems to mix up meanings. Indeed, his quote is a paradox. The only reason why we use the word “always” is because we have time. It’s a word that means “all the time” very literally.

I have no problem with Hawking believing that universe didn’t exist at some point. It’s a good a theory as any when it comes to the beginning of the universe. Whether you go with the singularity beginning or Hawking’s version, we know nothing about either event. The real problem with the use of Hawking is that it is a blatant appeal to authority. Hawking is not omnipotent, and has in fact been wrong on several occasions. The man is fallible; he makes mistakes.

I also love how you make a massive assumption by saying that it was both an eternal and external energy source that powered the universe. The last time I checked, “multiverse theory” was still at the purely hypothetical stage. Since we reckon the universe is a closed system (at least theoretically), energy transfers are impossible both ways. So the simplest explanation is either that the universe “always” existed in some form, and with the Big Bang grew to the point is it now, or the universe itself is eternal, expanding and collapsing every 30 billion years or so (see Big Crunch).

You then claim that it isn’t unreasonable to assume that this energy was God. I say it is. It’s unreasonable to assume anything unless you have valid evidence for it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest an idea or hypothesis that it was “God”, but at the same time I don’t think it’s very likely either. Of course, you use the standard arguments that the universe is complex, ordered, and designed, which are all blatantly untrue. Sure, the universe is kinda complex, but not enough so that a bunch of evolved apes that only really started using science in the last 500 years (if that) can’t understand it. Sure, the universe is kinda ordered, as long as you conveniently forget about the increasingly entropy making the universe more “disordered” on the particle level. Sure, the universe is designed, if you ignore that most of it empty space, most planets don’t support life, and even the ones that do support it don’t do a very good job. Add to that the sheer amount of objects that serve no purpose (black holes spring to mind) and the design theory fails completely.

So I don’t disagree with your “logic” because I don’t want to accept the possibility of God. I accept that possibility already (agnostic atheist remember?). Then again, since you lifted your entire comment out of a video I bet you didn’t bother to read the rest of the site. I disagree with your logic because it assumes too many things, and it doesn’t answer the assumptions with rational logical arguments. Where you could have natural explanations, you have the supernatural, and you think this is the best possible explanation.

That, and I HATE arguments that use CAPITAL LETTERS in order to EMPHASIZE words.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Religion Destroys Cognitive Ability
• Conversations With The Deluded
• Kieran Bennett: Why Atheist And NOT Agnostic?
• God As A Proxy For Goodness: How The Apparent Absence Of Alternatives Maintains Irrationality Alive
• Stuff Atheists Like