Atheists and religionists and scientists all agree that there has to be some power before the universe can come into being.  Atheists say it is enough to know that whatever did it was not a being of perfect love and compassion.  Religion uses the idea, "Nothing makes itself so God made all things." The issue is not what God created but what created your faith that somebody created.  Think about that.

All you need to know!
Nothing means more than just there being nothing or "not anything". It means there are no possibilities. Possibilities do not exist and CANNOT exist. Thus the notion of something coming from nothing involves a contradiction. The contradiction is how a possibility can appear when possibilities are impossible. It is logically impossible for possibilities to exist and not exist.


Logic cannot solve the problem of how and why things exist. Can science? Maybe and maybe not. But science can try! And it must keep trying. Religion says it is not science's place but what else is there? Therefore by a process of elimination it is science. Religion tries to solve it with logic and theology. But it is better to admit that there is a contradiction instead of adding to the incoherence and contradictions by saying there are logical or theological solutions. The less contradictions the better.


Talk about something coming from nothing masks or softens the absurdity.  Use more accurate language and the deception becomes clear.


Gerrymandering by theologians


William Lane Craig argues that there is no logical contradiction in asserting that the universe began to exist from nothing. But he argues that it is logically possible for a man to be a married bachelor! He says it does not matter at all philosophically if the creation and the unbachelor bachelor  make sense. He says what matters is the reality. The question is can they happen in the real universe?  He turns it from a question of what is logical to a question about what happened or was actualised.

So he says creation from nothing is logically possible.

But he says it is metaphysically impossible. That is a fancy way of saying to us things do not come from nowhere so it is not possible for that to happen. It is about experience not logic.  He should say in terms of the law of physics as opposed to metaphysical.  The latter has connotations of magic and supernatural and superstition.  There are overlaps between science and magic but that does not mean that the two are ever the same in any matters.

Others prefer to say creation from nothing is broadly logically impossible. That is just them saying the same thing but in different words. They point out that this has nothing to do with strict logical possibility or impossibility. So it is loosely logically impossible.

All that is just Christian philosophical or theological gerrymandering.  Logic does not leave any wriggle room. There is strict logic or no logic.


Christians don't mind creation out of nothing being broadly logically impossible.  They think it does not definitely show it could not have happened.  So they get a loophole out of it.  They should however stop making out that it is a duty to believe in God and recognise him as creator.  How can it be when one can deny a creator God makes sense?  Theory a that avoids anything broadly logically impossible is better than theory b that depends on it.

Nothing means no potential exists. No potential cannot become something. There is nothing broadly logical impossible about that. If that is an example of broad logical impossibility then there is no such thing as strict logic.


The Christian Church claims that God made all things. He made them out of nothing. He didn't make them out of himself. They surmise this on the basis that nothing causes itself or brings itself into being - in other words, all that can come out of nothing is nothing. They say that the contents of the universe did not make themselves but must have been made by a being that just exists and was not made, an uncaused cause. This being is God.


This assumes that God has the power to make things out of nothing. In other words, where there is only 0 there cannot be a 1 but if there is a God then 0 can become 1.


In our world, things come into existence by being made of things that already exist which is compatible with logic. People tend to forget that when something is said to have been made from nothing that it makes no sense to think of nothing as a material of which something can be made. Nothing is nothing and nothing can come from it or be made from it.


Premise One: God made all things and used nothing at all to make them. He did not make all things out of his power for that would not be making something out of nothing.


Premise Two: But even he can't make anything where there is nothing. It is a law of mathematics that 0 cannot become 1 and 1 cannot become 0 again. 0 and 1 are complete opposites so if there is only 0 there cannot be a 1. If that is wrong then 2+3 can be =1000.


Conclusion: God making all things out of nothing is impossible. It ruins our mathematics. You could and may as well argue that evil is good if you think the way the God belief requires you to. It is better not to believe in God at all - the price is too high.


The Christians argue that Premise Two is wrong. They say that they do not say God makes all things out of nothing as if nothing was a material. But Premise Two is clear that nothing is not a material out of which to make things. Premise Two is therefore correct.


People who believe in God may even say that making something out of nothing is impossible even for God. They say what they do say is that God makes things where there was nothing. But to say God made something where there was nothing is just another way of saying he made all things from nothing. Their argument does not help.


They say that something cannot come out of nothing or be made from nothing. They also say it is impossible for something to come out of nothing without God. So something can be made from nothing after all but only God can do it. That is like saying 1 cannot be the same as 2 unless there is a God. When they can't prove God can create or understand how he can do it, they have no business saying something can exist having been made of nothing if there is God to make it.


To say nothing can make 0 become 1 is crazy.  But to add in God makes it worse.  If 0 can become 1 at all then everything is absurd including God.  So adding in God magnifies the nonsense.


Creation by God is meaningless and incoherent

To create is to make out of nothing, in other words, to bring something that didn't exist at all before into existence. The Christians claim that only God can create. If we make something we do not create it for we make it from things that already exist.


Creation is a contradictory idea. To make something you need something to make it out of. So if there is nothing, you cannot make anything. If nothing is a material out of which things can be made then what do we need a God for? If there is nothing, God can't make anything. If anything exists, then it exists because it spontaneously came from nothing just as Stephen Hawking declared in 2010. He expressly declared that there is no need for God.


It is proven that something can't come into existence unless made from something else. If we put the proof out of our heads we will see that evidence also says that. Evidence is not as strong as proof. But if the evidence says something doesn't come from nothing that justifies us in agreeing with it even if there is no proof. To believe in God we have to renounce not just the proof that nothing comes from nothing but even the evidence that nothing comes from nothing.

Religion says you don't understand creation and nobody can. That is just a cop-out. If you say 2 is 3 you are not making sense and you cannot cover it up by calling it a mystery beyond the understanding. Same idea!


The danger with theories about how there is a universe or why is that you cannot claim to understand them so they may not make sense. What you have to live with is evidence. Evidence says nothing comes from nothing. Listen to it and do not arrogantly insult it with your mysteries. If you think there is a God of truth you have no regard for him for you don't esteem the evidence that something cannot just come from nowhere.


If nothing can become something then why can't there be a half and half? Why not a nothing/something? Admitting this is impossible is to admit something cannot come from nothing and no God can make a difference. Nothing becoming something is more absurd than nothing becoming a half-nothing and half-something.


Imagine there is a piece of bread. The priest comes along and he turns it into Jesus Christ without its appearance changing. The Church says that whatever makes the bread bread is gone and now what makes it Jesus is there in its place. Surely God could do a space-warp so that the end result is both bread and Jesus. We cannot accept this for it is against all our language and commonsense. How much worse is it to have something coming out of nothing?

Believers in a God who can make things out of nothing hold that God is not subject to time. He is in eternity which is like a present that never changes unlike time where the present turns into the past and the future is still ahead. If God creates an object out of nothing without making it in time then because nothing passes and the object is made out of nothing it follows that it is not made and made in the same "moment".


The Christians say something cannot come from nothing. They then say that only God can make it possible. If something cannot come from nothing then even God can't make it possible. They can't explain how God can do it so they are not really explaining at all when the question arises, "Where did all things come from?" and they say, "God made all things". They may as well say then that something can come from nothing which means that the God idea is unnecessary.


If we don't understand creation out of nothing and we see it as a contradiction, then saying it happened and that is that does not help at all. We can't talk about it knowing or understanding what we are talking about so like Buddha, we would just have to be silent. If creation out of nothing is impossible and still it is true, then what right do we have to insist that the universe being made out of something instead of nothing is so wrong?


If God can make something come from nothing, something can come from nothing without him as well because there is no inherent contradiction in that case between something and nothing. If a scientist can turn chalk into gold then it follows that it is possible for chalk to become gold by chance without anybody doing it.


The creation by God tale is just a nice story but it makes even worse sense than pagan gods raping virgins to make them pregnant.


God cannot un-create a fact and make it a non-fact


A fact just is. Even God cannot change a non-fact into a fact or make a fact untrue. Suppose he could create facts. Un-creating a fact as in making the holocaust not have happened is impossible. But pretend it could be done. Then it should be easier to change a fact into another fact than to create a fact from nowhere. There is less work in changing something than in creating it. For example, if it is a fact that John stole ten pounds God could change it into a fact that in fact he stole twenty. There is a fact there already to change. If that is silly then creation of fact from nothing is worse. To create a fact from nothing means there is no fact and God is causing one to exist when there is absolutely nothing.




Some thinkers say, "It is logically true that you cannot prove there is a God or prove there is no God."  But there is more to logic than what we can explore. There are things so complicated that we would not be able to understand them logically unless our brains were more powerful than what they are.  Something is either logically possible or it is not.  But some things are more illogical than others.  It is more illogical to believe that the universe is made of cheese than it is to believe it is an illusion.  Nobody knows that if belief in God is illogical then how illogical it is.  But it would be illogical to give God the importance that faith gives him when there is the risk of being into something insane.


Hard atheism says God cannot be proven so God definitely does not exist.  This makes the mistake of assuming that everything that cannot be 100% proven is equally unproven, which is patently false. Atheists do not believe in God because they see no good evidence that such a deity exists. This falls short

No Copyright