People think of something appearing where there was nothing.  If that can happen then nothing can explode as in the big bang.  An explosion is a something.  A sane person argues that if a God creates like that then he is doing a deception for technically nothing should not be able to explode and now he is making it look like it can!



Religion does not mention that something coming but not from anything is only half the story.  Why is the view that something can "create" the other way by going back into nothing not mentioned?  If one can happen so can the other.   You may say, "But things will become nothing if God stops sustaining them?  We teach that."  That is not what I mean.  I mean something deeper.  Here it is.






Why can't this something just appear, be made by a God, and be set to be self-sufficient in that it will continue to exist even if God ceases to exist?


Religion does not want the creation of what can do without God.  Its real objective is to argue "All things completely depend on God."  So it is telling God he must only create what needs him.  This is not respect for God.  It offers a limited view of creation.  It does not want us to argue, "It is permissible to live as an atheist even if there is a God for he has made his creation independent of him anyway.  He keeps out so much he may as well not exist."  There is an ideological background.  For that reason it unconvincingly argues, "Creation means all utterly needs God to even exist.  The universe exists.  Therefore this view of God is true."  It is abhorrent to use a universe riddled with danger and suffering that way.  The argument is a trick and a lie.  People's agony or vulnerability is not to be lied about that way.


Creation is related to the lie that the random exists.  It is a lie for how can it if God creates all and all utterly depends on him?  It means the random is only an outward appearance?  It is a trick then?  It is not really random then?  Correct!


No Copyright