A question to all atheists!

[robvalue]

This question is a good illustration of the difference between arguments and evidence, and the importance of the latter over the former.

We have no experience of this scenario. We have no experience of "nothing". We cannot test it. We cannot observe it. We have no experience of such a transition. We have no evidence beyond what is stated in the hypothesis. So the answer is: we can't infer anything with any confidence. We can speculate, of course.

You can step in and make logical arguments for what you think will happen, based on further assumptions you make. But you have no way of knowing whether you're coming to correct conclusions, or just talking complete nonsense. Imposing assumptions on entirely unknown scenarios is rather pointless. And without them, all we can do is rephrase the scenario in tautological ways.