A potential argument for existence of God

[Minimalist]

Right.  If Odin did it, you're fucked.

[Alex K]

@TheMuslim,
Assuming that these scientists mean what you think they mean - that time indeed had a beginning at this point 13.7 billion years ago. In this case, it makes no sense to talk about the creation of the universe, for this is a temporal concept. Your concept of creating something does not apply if time does not exist. There is no "before time". If you want to invoke a beginning of time at the big bang, you have yourself killed your argument, in my opinion.

[Cato]

Another example of willful ignorance parading as newfound knowledge. What is it with believers rehashing old arguments that have already been refuted. Keep in mind that these arguments are only attempted because there is zero evidence for any god's existence.

[Simon Moon]

Hi everyone, 

So last night, before falling asleep, I thought of a potential argument for the existence of God (and this isn't the reason why I believe in God), and would like to see feedback on whether it's a good argument or not and why. So this is how it goes:

The universe had a beginning. Therefore there can be only two possibilities: either it was created from nothing, or it created itself. The universe couldn't have created itself because it was nonexistent before its creation. And if it was created from nothing, because nothing existed, there were no factors to narrow down creation to a certain kind of thing, and thus nothingness had an infinite amount of options to choose from to create something. We know that it did choose a particular one. Therefore, by choosing a particular one, it (nothingness) discarded all the other options. Hence, nothingness has an inherent quality of picking certain things and not picking others, and also the power to create its chosen option. But how can nothingness have such qualities of power and choosiness; it is nothing; it  has no quality or disposition! If nothingness does indeed have these qualities, then it is no longer nothing; it would be a powerful, choosy being that has the ability to choose freely (because there are no factors to limit its choice) and hence has a free will, and is uncreated. Sounds a lot like God!

Keep in mind that the resulting "nothingness" with its mentioned qualities does seem to match with the Islamic concept of God, because in Shia Islam, Allah (God) is nothing but His Qualities; His Qualities are Him, and are His Essence.

Those aren't the only 2 possibilities.


Here's another possibility to add to your list. 

The universe always existed in some form, and it just changed forms with the big bang.

Your premise, "Therefore there can be only two possibilities", is what is known as a false dichotomy. 

Just because those are the only 2 possibilities you are able to think of, does not mean those are actually the only 2 possibilities.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Another example of willful ignorance parading as newfound knowledge. What is it with believers rehashing old arguments that have already been refuted. Keep in mind that these arguments are only attempted because there is zero evidence for any god's existence.

Laziness, and the unfounded belief that one is somehow unique and special (I know you know this, but they don't it seems).

[Esquilax]

Anything that moves must rationally have a beginning,

Therefore, your god needs a beginning... or doesn't he move? Either that, or you believe that things can move without beginnings. Either way, you're screwed at the first hurdle.

because if there was an infinite amount of time before a certain movement, then that movement would never come to be (because you would have to go through an infinite number of years before you 'reached' the movement). So moving objects (including our universe) couldn't have existed forever. They must have began.

I don't think you understand how time works. It's pretty standard for theists, taking simple things and turning them into impossible challenges, reliant on magic, if they think it'll prove their god. But if you have an infinite amount of time, by definition you have enough time to reach any given event along a timeline, regardless of how lengthy that timeline might be. There are infinite numbers, but it's not impossible to count to four.

Apart from this, most empirical evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, regularity of cosmic microwave background, and data from the BICEP2 (including direct evidence of gravitational waves). Most physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe did have a beginning. As Dr. Pluijm of the Universtiy of Michigan said, "The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a 'Big Bang' about 15 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. Louis Clavelli, professor of physics at the University of Alabama, similarly reaffirms: "A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles." Stephen Hawkings, after giving a lecture on time, said: "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."

The big bang does not necessarily connote the very beginning of the universe, just the beginning of its current, expansionary state. In fact, if you would look further at the science you've paid lip service to, right up until the moment that it seems to confirm what you already believe and not a word further, you would see that the common consensus offers no view of what the universe was like before the Planck time, as we do not have the technology, nor knowledge, to predict that with any degree of accuracy. In fact, given that time and space commingle, the point before the big bang, where space itself was in a state unlike anything we've ever observed, could easily also be a point at which time behaves differently, such that your "everything that begins to exist has a cause," crap is no longer even applicable. Your self serving assumption that time has behaved exactly the same way, even before the point at which it even could, simply does not stand.

[Jackalope]

Looks more like an argument for the existence of bad arguments if you ask me.

[Cyberman]

All you've done so far is reaffirm the Big Bang model. I don't see how you can honestly get from there to "therefore God" without major fiat assertions.

Here's a little food for thought for you. You cited Stephen Hawking, quite rightly as an authority on the subject. Yet he is an atheist who has repeatedly said that no gods were necessary for creating the Universe. Why do you suppose that is, that he remains unconvinced by the argument that you're advocating?

[Longhorn]

So last night, before falling asleep, I thought of a potential argument for the existence of God (and this isn't the reason why I believe in God), and would like to see feedback on whether it's a good argument or not and why. So this is how it goes:

Ideas you think of before falling asleep usually don't exhibit an outstanding lucidity of mind, you know....

[smax]

The universe couldn't have created itself because it was nonexistent before its creation. 

Here is the fundamental flaw in the theist perspective. You start out using a logical deduction but then your very next move is to abandon logic completely. In your view, the universe must have been created because all things must have a beginning, and yet, in your view, god does not. In essence, the universe is subject to logical deduction, god is not. 

The reality is, we don't know for certain how the universe came to be, and I think it's safe to say that our understanding of the universe is still extremely limited. But what we know for sure is, the universe exists, it's verifiable. I personally think the answer of it's origin is vastly beyond our current level of comprehension. But the pursuit of such knowledge is noble, exciting, and capable of furthering many important aspects of civilization. 

The question of god, however, is not exciting at all because there is no compelling evidence that such a being exists, so it seems much like a wasted pursuit that will serve to hinder progress rather than further it. The question of god creates war, suppression, a misguided sense of superiority, cruelty, and fanaticism. Even worse, the question of god threatens the very existence and prosperity of human kind. Because, at the end of the day, it is man who created god and it is man who makes god's decisions. Man decides for god what and who to blow up. Man decides who god wants to suffer oppression and torture. Man decides what people (races or culture) god wants to keep around and which ones he wants eradicated. 

If there is a god, he has long chosen not to reveal himself in any personal way. Why not accept that fact and focus on what is evident. You'll be doing yourself and humanity a great service.