Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


To ask why there is something rather than nothing is also to ask that if there is nothing then why is there nothing rather than something.  That shows how useless the question is. 

Religion would have you believe that asking why there is something rather than nothing makes sense and points to God as creator - the one who makes things but does not use anything to make them from.

Why is there nothing rather than something?

Imagine there is nothing. If there should be something and the question would be, "Why is there nothing rather than something?" Or to paraphrase, “Why is there nothing when there should be something or why is there nothing rather than something?” This question is absurd for we see that it is logically possible for there to have been nothing at all. The point is that existence can't be explained and so we shouldn't even try. This would imply that the creator God concept is denying this and is therefore evil and bigoted and narrow.

Religion reasons that it makes sense to ask, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and makes no sense to ask, “Why is there nothing rather than something?” We have just shown that this approach is just simply rejecting logic for they think God existing by chance was impossible so that there could not have been nothing.

The question would make sense if there could be something. And we know there could be something for we exist to prove it. The question would then imply that something can pop out of nothing without a cause which is something religion cannot accept for it denies the need for a God to make things. So the answer that we just exist and nothing more needs to be said is the best answer. God is not a good answer so to ask us to believe in God is to ask us to adopt a bad unreasonable opinion. God could not expect us to believe in him when our existence forbids it for he is a bad answer.

If you see the notion of something always existing and becoming the universe, something coming from nothing by itself or something coming from nothing by the power of God all as absurd then we have to choose whatever is the least insane. Beggars cannot be choosers. God should be left out of it for it makes the problems worse.

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

This says there could have been nothing and also that there could have been something. It says there should be something. And yet if there could be nothing there could be no necessary being such as a God. So God is not a necessary being!

“Why is there nothing rather than something?”

This says there could have been nothing and also that there could have been something. It too says there should be something. And yet if there could be nothing there could be no necessary being such as a God.

So the two questions are inseparable. They have the same assumptions so if one falls so does the other – and remember God believers hold that the second question is nonsense. If one is a stupid question so is the other. Therefore the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” makes no sense though it looks as if it does.

And if you believe in God, it makes them make less sense. God is the denial that there could have been nothing for God is the reason why there being nothing was impossible.

SCIENCE SAYS

As science is about testing it is said that nothing cannot be tested as there is nothing there. But it can be tested indirectly.  Science says that if no energy can be detected then there is nothing there.  This by default opposes the notion that there could be spirit energy there.  It is not neutral.  In science nothing means nothing.  Its religion that says it is neutral not science!

Science if it says the universe came from nothing then has to treat nothing as a sort of something. Near nothing which is still real is a subject for scientific experiment and testing in principle. Science then suggests that it is possible in theory. Religion says it is possible too though it has another kind of near nothing that is something - spirit.  Both agree that nothing is not necessarily literally nothing.  Science opposes the notion that the near nothing is spirit.  Religion does not like this as it suggests that spirit is just one theory too far!