The Big Bang “theory” essential teaches that something came from nothing .. which is Mathematically and logically impossible… what say ye?

An existing building that can be seen by the human eye obviously had a builder.
An existing car that can be driven by a human obviously had a maker.

You would be considered a fool if you didn’t believe that these two lifeless things didnt have a maker or builder or if you thought they just made themselves.

Yet when you honestly look at all of the universe and all of creation and all of the many life forms on earth and in the seas, you can honestly say they just came from nothing?

Athiesm is illogical and very dishonest in my opinion, you have to literally lie to yourself, deny logic and close your eyes to believe there is no Creator of it all …

Can something come from nothing? Dude... how?

Exactly ! Of course something cannot come from nothing…

Let's hear an example of nothing. What is nothing ... "no thing?" It's a contradiction in terms. Besides, the Law of Conservation of Energy states that if there is energy here now, and there is, then it has always been in existence in one form or another. The "something from nothing" crap is so bogus and so disproved as meaningful as to be ridiculous.

Your example that man-made things are made by man is completely irrelevant to what makes the things that are not made by man. It leads only to some things are made by man and some aren't ... not that we just get to plug god into what made the non-man-made things. That latter is just farcical logic. We "know" only that, say, man didn't create Saturn. Cosmologically we have a pretty good idea what did. So to just plug god in there is intentional ignoring of reality with religious presupposition.

Not going after you here, but do you think the universe is just some expanding and contracting orb that continually contracts and expands for infinity for some reason? Or it just blew up out of some small state or something and now what exists exists? God is a more reasonable explanation, dude. (You might not disagree with me, I'm just getting that you don't think God made the universe from your post, sorry if I'm wrong)

"Something from nothing" is a red herring. "God did it" is a red herring and a magic claim (not to mention a surrender to the mentality of superstitious pre-scientific times). The gods are a dime a dozen. THEY ARE BEING MADE UP. To refuse to extract oneself from the entire mindset of these ancient ignorant magic books is irresponsible to realism, knowledge, science, skepticism, independent thought.

No, I don't know the mysteries of the universe. And that doesn't increase by .00000001% the odds that some ancient book of superstitions and magic is the answer.

Your proving my point, creation and all of life did come from something .. But Atheist and Big Bang theories believe it all came from a big bang so to speak that just happened to create the essence of life which over billions of years has eventually resulted in life as we know it.

Thats the stupidest most dishonest immature way to think I have ever heard of.

Something (Life) did come but it wasn't from nothing, it came purposely for a specific reason .

Evolutionists, Big Bang Theorist, God rejectors, Atheist all pretty much believe we do currently exists but we came to exist from nothing… When you pin them down logically and do not let them slip out and sidetrack the logic that have to admit that the something (life we live) did come into existence from something because = 0+0 = 0 its a proven mathematical law

And so you integrated not a word of what I pointed up into your worldview. The non-theological worldview does not say something came from nothing, but that there never was nothing and couldn't be. We have energy now so there was always energy. No nothing needed. It didn't come from nothing; you are just blindly asserting that. There is energy now so there was always energy so there was never nothing: THAT IS ESTABLISHED. Yet you go right back to "You say it all got here from nothing." It is established science that there was never nothing, i.e. there was always something. And that something just evolves, that word theists are so terrified of.

Big Bang cosmology, which I am deeply skeptical about, does not in any way assert that there was nothing before the Big Bang. That is an ignorantly embarassing mischaracterization of it. It says absolutely nothing of the sort.

And so the great scientists of the world have "the stupidest most dishonest immature way to think you have ever heard" ... and the illiterate goat herders who believed that kissing a donkey cured the cold and got their metaphysics from prayer are the credible ones. That's your position, right?

A fool’s says theres is no God

No real good scientist believes the lies Atheist believe - most great scientists especially in the field of quantum mechanics know there’s something that holds the universe together and started it - educate yourself on the subject

No offense, but you don't know God's are being made up, you just presume they are based on what you know (there's no way you could know, unless you had absolute knowledge about this). It's logically possible that one God is real and the rest are made up.

Lots of things are logically possible. It’s logically possible that the earth will stop spinning on its axis exactly one hour after I post this, causing massive devastation due to the massive tidal flooding and techtonic activity that would accompany such an event. It is logically possible that the sun has completely ceased to emit radiation and that the earth will drop to the 3K temperature of the CMB starting 8 minutes from now and we will all freeze. It is logically possible that the earth will fly off into space and we will all freeze when we get too far from the sun.

The thing is that while such things are logically possible, we observe certain regularities in the way the universe works that make them very unlikely. Conservation of angular momentum prevents the first one. Laws governing the weak and strong forces plus the second law of thermodynamics would prevent the second. Newton’s first and second laws of motion plus general relativity govern the third.

The point is that being merely logically possible is not a sufficiently high bar to take an idea seriously. That applies to the idea that there is one real god and tens of thousands of fake ones. Sure it’s logically possible, but so what? Where is the actual evidence to show that it is likely?

I mean when it comes to God it's so reasonable that it's worth taking seriously.

So many responses from people who are completely willing to believe and trust that what they themselves come up with in their own thinking is empirical evidence against the existence of God. I mean how egotistical can you be? You didn’t make yourself. And everything you have come to know and believe has come from stimulation outside your mind but yet you believe your thoughts are empirical, superior and right? Geeesh, as I said before “a fool says there is no God”

Yeah, much better to eschew rational thought and blindly follow the wisdom of Brinze Age goat herders. Who needs all that ridiculous crap like logic and evidence when we have a really old book that can just tell us everything.

How egotistical can you be to think that of all the thousands of gods and religions people have developed that the one YOU believe in, (most likely only because you were born where you were and someone told you to believe it) is the only true one and that all of the billions of other people who believe differently from you are wrong. Yeah, you have faith. So what? So do all those billions of other people. Yeah, the Bible says so. So what? The Koran says so, the Vedas says so, the sacred texts of Buddhism say so, etc. Why is it that you are egotistical enough to believe that YOUR sacred book is right and the others arenÂ’t? Also, how egotistical do you have to be to believe that there actually is an immortal, all-powerful being out there and that the main reason that this being exists and does what he does is to create an entire universe specifically for you personally?

At least with scientific inquiry, we donÂ’t need a sacred book and we donÂ’t have to take anyoneÂ’s word for it. We can in principle perform any of the experiments that led to our current understanding ourselves. We can observe the universe ourselves to look for evidence. When we do so, we find that the need for a deity to explain things gets smaller and smaller as we go on. Science certainly cannot rule out the existence of a deity, but IÂ’d one exists why is there not more evidence of it? Why are the regularities we observe in the universe there? Why do things work the same way over and over? A deity intervening in the universe would be expected to manifest in some way that is unexplainable by scientific law and theory. Why are there not more observations that are not explainable?

One answer is that there is no deity. Ockham’s Razor suggests that to be the best answer since it is the simplest. Another answer is that there is a deity who started the universe but no longer interferes with it. To that I would argue “What’s the point?” We would be unable to distinguish a deist universe from an atheist one. No possible observation or experiment could do so, and a deity who doesn’t interfere has no relevance to anything. Why bother believing in such a deity? Although the thought that all of our universe is just some deity’s old science project that got left in a divine shed or garage somewhere does have a perverse kind of appeal to me personally - it certainly would put debates like these in a quite different light.

If itÂ’s so reasonable, then please explain it to me in a rational way. If you are going to start quoting books written thousands of years ago, donÂ’t bother - we will just be talking past each other.

In point of fact, belief in God is IMO quite the opposite of reasonable. Take the topic of this thread - can something come from nothing? The theist says that belief in God is reasonable because something cannot come from nothing. The question I then have is “Is God something?” This leads the theist to an inescapable dilemma. If the answer is no, then God is nothing and cannot be invoked to explain the existence of the universe - something cannot come from nothing. If the answer is yes, then God is a something. But something cannot come from nothing, so where did God come from? Did God come from “Uber-God” who created our God? Maybe, but then that just pushes the dilemma back to “Uber-God” and obviously leads to infinite regress of more and more powerful deities invoked solely to create other lesser ones.

God has always been here. ThatÂ’s the typical theist answer. But is that really a reasonable one? The atheistic alternative seems more reasonable when considering the properties of the entities involved. The atheistic answer is that something has always existed, namely an energy field (usually referred to as an inflation field in modern cosmology). This field, like all fields is not unchanging but subject to quantum fluctuations. One such fluctuation led to a state where an exponential inflation of space occurred and the energy of the field was converted to radiation and matter.

If “God has always existed” is reasonable, then how is “a field has always existed” less so? The field need not have any of the special properties that God does, like intelligence, omnipotence, etc. The field only needs to exist. It seems more likely and reasonable to think that there is an eternally existing entity without any special properties than that there is such an entity that must have very special properties

I believe in Jesus dude, and I'm fine with the Bible. I don't think it's ego, it's just genuine belief. The other religions seem made up to be honest and I believe what I believe, so...

Do you seriously find the idea of God not needing to have been created worth objecting?

You don't think it's reasonable that God made the universe (I don't believe God did fwiw, I believe Jesus did, read John 1 if you want to know why)? Like seriously, think it through.

So God is just special pleading then. I don’t know the answer, therefore God. If you have no problem with God not needing a creator then why do you have a problem with a field nit needing a creator? The difference is that the field need not be intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

Other than “Because I said so” or “Because that is just what I believe”, what makes God’s eternal existence different from the eternal existence of a field?

It's two different ways of looking at things. Why is it unreasonable to believe God exists? Why would a field just exist?

It’s only reasonable if there actually is a God. Goat herder stories from thousands of years ago are not particularly convincing. I really don’t care what John had to say about anything. I’m quite capable of using my own intellect and reason; I don’t need other people telling me what to think, especially long dead ones.

Now I invite you to use your own intellect and reason. Explain to me why it is so reasonable to think that God exists. The goat herders who wrote the Bible lived thousands of years ago before scientific advances could explain what was going on around them. They were subject to seemingly random and catastrophic events, like storms, floods, lightning strikes and so on. They had no explanation for any of it. For them it was perfectly reasonable to think that a God might be angry with them and be punishing them. Further, they had no knowledge of gravity or astrophysics, so they had no conception of why there are days and night, why the earth exists at all, or why the celestial objects they saw were in the sky. Again, God creating it all was a perfectly reasonable belief for them.

You now are reading the stories they wrote down, but we now understand how the universe works a whole lot better than they did. We no longer think that the hurricane we just lived through was the result of God - heat energy from the ocean combined with the earth’s rotation can set up warm, moist air masses that begin rotating and produce a low pressure area, generating high winds and large amounts of rain. No need for a deity to explain hurricane formation. We also have a pretty good idea of how stellar formation and evolution works, including the formation of planetary systems - affair no deity needed. Why then is it still reasonable to assume God did it?

Why would God just exist? Unless you can provide an answer to that that is different from that for “why would a field just exist?”, there is no reason to prefer one over the other based only on mere existence. It is the necessity of other properties for God that leads to a preference for a field. God must possess intelligence, omnipotence, benevolence, etc. The field need not possess any such special properties.

It’s just special pleading - God is different, just because. Sorry but I find that unconvincing.

What you're saying is reasonable (except for the goat herder remarks), but it doesn't make the existence of God unreasonable.