Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

It is definitely not, seeing as the nothingness you are referring to still apparently has to obey the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry.

given an infinite amount of time, anything and everything because of probability, HAS to happen.

My nothing can beat up your nothing!

the whole "complexity" argument is inherantly flawed because of the following reasons: "complexity" is subjective, and subject to those using the term. something very simple, such as an atom, still has a very complex existence, with complicated mechanics and physics. though very simple, it is complex. Yet, it does not point out that "an intellegent mind had to create that complexity". Theres no rule or any scientific maxim that says complex systems NEED an intellegent person/deity to exist. This is just wishful thinking.

I hate the whole "name in the sand" or "name in the tree" complexity argument because that name in the tree or sand absolutely has nothing to do with the physics of the universe.

Dover v Board of Education is a good case study.The judge ruled that the school board was basing its cirriculum not on national scientific standards, but on religious influence. The prosecution proved that the baord of education's main influence was religious belief, which is a violation of sep. church and state.

Also, theres no such thing as irreducible complexity; proponets for IC argued using bacteria as an example. The flagellum of the bacteria (the paddle that moves it along) works in the same way a complex man-made motor works, using the same principles of torque, friction, etc. They argued that if one component of the bacterium's flagellum was not there, the motor ceased functionable use, and therefore, must be created by some intellegent designer. but, they proved this wrong by pointing out that other bacteria had the same developmental adaptation of the flagellum, but the motor was missing parts. Though the flagellum didnt act as a paddle or rotor anymore, it certainly had a use as a hypodermic needle, as it used its adaptation for sticking to other cells and consuming them. This proved that complexity CAN be reducible WITH complex functionality. Its the argument that "a mousetrap is no longer a mousetrap if you take one part of it away." Though it may not be a mousetrap anymore, you can still use it in a functional way as a tie-clip.

Irreducible complexity doesnt exist, as it has been proved so many times.

Theres a theory that the universe never had a beginning, or an end, just one continuous expansion and contraction.

Why does everything need a beginning? Time doesnt have a beginning, nor does it have an end. The truth is, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

I tell you this I come to you in reasoning and in logic,but you can't disprove or approve God's existences. That makes him God!

Where did Matter come from? Logically speaking
I would rather believe there is a God in the Bible than to die and then find out otherwise. It's a terrible notion to have listened to the worlds point of view to find out they where wrong and pay the ultimate price for it.

that is the nothingness i am referring too.


basically, nothing can't act because nothingness is restricted by the fact that it is nothing.

here is the premise of my argument:
nothing is nothing

here is the premise of your argument:
nothing is not nothing.

nothing is restricted from becoming something because it is nothing. these aren't outside restrictions, but these are restrictions placed in the existence (or non-existence) of nothing because if nothing exists, or doesn't exist, nothing is necessary to itself.

I tell you this I come to you in reasoning and in logic,but you can't disprove or approve God's existences. That makes him God!

Where did Matter come from? Logically speaking

I would rather believe there is a God in the Bible than to die and then find out otherwise.

It's a terrible notion to have listened to the worlds point of view to find out they where wrong and pay the ultimate price for it.

And nothingness doesn't act. Some thing comes into existence because, 'in' nothingness, there is no thing to stop the aforementioned thing from coming into existence.

It is definitely not, seeing as the nothingness you are referring to still apparently has to obey the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry.



No, I am saying that the LACK of the LAWS OF LOGIC, PHYSICS, AND CHEMISTRY can cause something to come out of nothing.

My nothing can beat up your nothing!



Those restrictions only apply if that something or nothing has to abide by the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry, which the Greek concept of chaos does not.



You were wrong then, you are wrong now.



What part of LACKING THE LAWS OF LOGIC don't you understand?

Wiccan_Child: And nothingness doesn't act. Some thing comes into existence because, 'in' nothingness, there is no thing to stop the aforementioned thing from coming into existence.

No, your premise is: nothing is nothing, but inexplicably has laws and restrictions and other physical phenomena.

Nope. Our premise is: nothing is the lack of anything, including physical laws.

You are placing properties and qualities on something that, by definition, is an absence. How can an absence have properties?

Why don't we drop the term 'nothingness', and use something like 'chaos' or 'primal ocean of ur-stuff' or whatever; 'nothingness' seems to be too loaded with non-creative inertia to be useful here... what we need is something that can represent raw, untamed and unstructured potentiality.

that "in" is the problem.... if there is only nothing, and something comes into existence, then the something coming into existence is intrinsic to nothingness, which further would mean that nothing was never nothing to begin with.

a lack of something does not produce something, and a lack of everything does not produce the possibility of something.

you're presupposing that nothing isn't nothing before the argument even starts.

here's a breakdown of what you've just said:

1. nothing causes nothing; nothing cannot act.

2. nothing causes the possibility of something.

even if you say that nothing causes the possibility of something because it lacks rules, you're still saying that nothing "causes" the possibility of something.

it's like me saying absolute truth, or God, must exist because the concept of truth lacks any opposition other than truth. you're arguing ontologies, and i've already broken down to you why the ontology is wrong.

it's because nothing is nothing.

nothing cannot produce something, not even possibilities of something, because that's still something.

nothing does not lack restrictions because nothing is nothing. the only way for nothing to lack restrictions is if nothing is not nothing.

here's the logical outcome of your argument.

1. nothing is nothing
2. nothing lacks all restrictions.
3. nothing lacks the restriction of being nothing.
4. therefore, nothing is not nothing.

premise 2. is wrong.

if you remove all restrictions, you're not only allowing that nothing become something, you're allowing that nothing is something.

... what?


There are many ideas, but no one knows for sure (this includes theists).


Why? Why wouldn't you rather believe in the God of the Qu'ran? Or the Kitab-i-Aqdas? Or the gods of the Vedic texts? Or the gods of the Vikings? Or the Celts? Or the Angles? Or the Saxons? Or the Mayans? Or the Aztecs?

What's so special about the God of the Bible?


Fortunately, no one knows what is true. What would happen if, when you died, it turned out that Islam was true?

Well, "chaos" and "primal ocean of ur-stuff" are a bit too something-y for my taste. Nothingness aptly describes what's going on (or not, as the case my be).