How does this anti-atheist argument sound?

Question

The best defense for the existence of God is that the universe itself exists, and matter needs a point of origin. Atheists would then ask “Who created God?”. When we respond “God always was.”, they come back and say “Why can’t we say that the universe always was?” Here’s my rebuttal: Consider the chair that you’re sitting on. It’s mass needed a point of origin, but what about the concept, or the ‘form’ of the chair? Before the first chair was built, you still had the possibility, or the form of the chair. The form always was, and always will be, but not the physical actuality. Of all the infinite forms, Good and Evil are the most significant. God IS good, and the Devil IS evil. They were the two original minds/beings, and they needed this universe and people to make choices, so they cooperated. A few moments later … BANG … there we were. God and the Devil were the totality of the forms/concepts of Good and Evil, so they don’t need a point of origin, unlike physical reality.

No matter how you slice it, based on the laws of physics alone, this universe should not be here.

Answer 1

try respecting the views of other, unfortunately the law gives them freedom of religion and speech. Ingore them...

Answer 2

Is my chair evil?

Good and evil are not fundamental properties of the universe but rather concepts invented by humans to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Your argument does not provide an answer to the original question.

Also, are you a physics grad student majoring in astrophysics with a focus in cosmology? If not, then I would not suggest being so certain of you ideas in regards to Physics. Physics says nothing about what happened before the big bang (at least the tested theories do not), and as such, you cannot make the assumption that physics says that the universe shouldn't exist. It doesn't say that. That idea is an extrapolation of current ideas, and I would leave that to the people who study physics for a living.

In addition, forms are not forever. They come into being through human ingenuity and imagination. The concept of a television did not exist until someone thought about it.

Answer 3

that's obtainable that the "kind" continuously existed, and Plato might agree which contain your in this, yet maximum atheists, (through fact they are empiricists) might reject this through fact they don't have self assurance in a priori know-how. they had say that that's knowable approximately actuality is is basically knowable by using sense experiece. the start of your argument however is especially stable on the subject of commencing place, and you will base it on empirical observations. right this is how: a million.) the 1st regulation of thermodynamics says that remember and capacity can not make greater remember and capacity 2.) the 2nd regulation of thermodynamics says that entropy strikes from a a techniques better state to a decrease state. (issues don't get greater complicated, they get less difficult.) Entropy can strengthen briefly, yet universally is reducing 3.) remember nonetheless exists 4.) If the universe continuously existed then remember does not exist through fact it would have decayed into capacity an eternity in the past. 5.) If remember nonetheless exists, then the universe has not continuously existed. 6.) If the universe has not continuously existed, then it has an commencing place. 7.) remember and capacity did not create the universe through fact remember and capacity can not create remember and capacity 8.) for this reason, the universe became created with the help of something exterior to the universe.

Answer 4

The best defense for the existence of MONKEYS is that the MONKEYS itself exists, and matter needs a point of origin. MONKEYS would then ask “Who created MONKEYS?”. When we respond “MONKEYS always was.”, MONKEYS come back and say “Why can’t MONKEYS say that the MONKEYS always was?” Here’s my rebuttal: Consider the MONKEYS that MONKEYS sitting on. It’s MONKEYS needed a point of origin, but what about the MONKEYS, or the ‘MONKEYS’ of the MONKEYS? Before the first MONKEYS was built, MONKEYS still had the MONKEYS, or the MONKEYS of the MONKEYS. The MONKEYS always was, and always will be, but not the MONKEYS actuality. Of all the infinite forms, MONKEYS and MONKEYS are the most significant. MONKEYS IS MONKEYS, and the MONKEYS IS MONKEYS. They were the two original MONKEYS, and MONKEYS needed this MONKEYS and MONKEYS to make choices, so they cooperated. A few moments later … MONKEYS … there we were. MONKEYS and MONKEYS were the totality of the MONKEYS of MONKEYS and MONKEYS, so MONKEYS don’t need a point of MONKEYS, unlike physical MONKEYS.

Answer 5

There is a huge, gaping flaw in your logic:

Anything that interacts with the natural universe, must have a natural origin.

Just because the laws of physics break down in regards to the singularity, doesn't imply that there isn't a natural origin to the universe. It only means that there are more laws/aspects then we are yet able to understand. Proclaiming these to be 'gods' is foolish (read up on the god of the gaps arguements).

Answer 6

I understand what you're trying to say, I think. However, I believe that concepts are results of human consciousness. If humans didn't exist, would the concept of a chair exist? Also, "good" and "evil" have been surprisingly malleable terms over the years. Certain past civilizations regarded things as "good" that we would quickly label "evil" in our time.

Answer 7

How much do you know about the universe? You probably know more about the universe than god right? What if millions of light years away there is this orb that is the eternal thing that made everything. Lets say that In 10000 years mankind makes it out there and studies this thing and now we know how everything started.
I would like to let you know that this is entirely hypothetical and not even close to a belief that I have. I would just like to live my life without being with a group of conceited, holier than thou people.
Believe what you want just don't expect me to believe it.
Leave the pushing to the drug dealers.

Answer 8

That's why I don't like Christians; they are too meddlesome!
Well, what is Good and what is Evil, when all morals face decadence today? Plus, there were no morals before humans. Animals lived in incest and murder and yet they were happy. Strong's domination of Weak, that is the law of nature.

We needed God before then as the policeman of the ancient society, since everyone would follow the ethics in the fear for God, but we have things settled. Even if we didn't, we have too much knowledge to doubt him. He can only exist when there are "absolute faith" spotless of doubt. Thus he died, Nietzsche says. Plus, his morals are too ancient, as it was modeled for the ancient society. There are plentiful evidence that obviously God is a sexist. An example? Go type Lilith on Wiki. She only remains on the Babilonian text as God ordered, or so Christians claim, because she was a disgraceful creature and later wed Satan.

Answer 9

I'm no physicist... but it's really obvious that you aren't either. You're also not a theologian, or you'd know that putting the Devil on equal footing with God is one of the big no-nos of Christianity. Then add in your interpretation of the creation of the universe... your preacher would probably have a stroke if he saw your little reinterpretation of Genesis.

I'm not even an atheist and you don't convince me.

Answer 10

Refer to the theory of relativity. Saying that the big bang is not possible without God shows little understanding of the big bang theory. Cute analogies (like the chair) are fun, but they hardly pass for any kind of evidence.

Answer 11

Obviously you have no idea what constitutes proof, or even evidence. You make statements as though they're facts, but back them up with nothing. Example: "God IS good, and the Devil IS evil." There is no evidence that either exists, so your statement about their attributes is meaningless.
.