The Hubble Ultra Deep Field, is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 3, 2003 through January 16, 2004. The patch of sky in which the galaxies reside was chosen because it had a low density of bright stars in the near-field. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The number of new articles and books coming out that assert that the universe literally arose from nothingness without any deity reveal the desperation of atheists. They behave like individuals that assert an absurdity, thinking that if they repeat it enough people will believe it. No matter how much atheists repeat the mantra, “The universe popped into existence out of nothingness,” it will not make that claim any less incoherent. Atheists still play games with the “quantum vacuum,” even though theists have pointed out time and time again that a quantum vacuum is not mere nothingness. When Hawking speaks of a true vacuum causing the existence of a false vacuum, he is spouting nonsense. “Ex nihil, nihil fit” (from nothing, nothing comes to be”) is true today as it was in the past. Pure nothingness is just nonexistence–since it is literally no-thing, not matter, not energy–it cannot have any powers including causal powers. If the atheist tries to bring in another factor into the “true vacuum,” that brings back “something.” The atheist would be more consistent to accept the ancient idea of the everlastingness of the universe as do some “multiverse” theories. In the end, I do not think they save atheism, but at least they are not obviously self-contradictory.
Atheistic scientists often accuse theists of believing in the fantastic, in something so absurd that it cannot exist. Such claims are often salted with terms such as “Santa Claus” and “The Tooth Fairy,” as if that has anything to do with the issue of the existence of God. It is far more fantastic to believe that something arose from sheer nothingness. It is also far more fantastic to believe in an infinite number of universes in which all logical possibilities are actualized (If the traditional conception of God is logically possible, involving no contradiction, which it surely is, then I suppose the atheist would accept one logical possibility that is not actualized–but then the atheist is all about making exceptions when it suits him).
Atheism is primarily about rebellion rather than reality–some people refuse to accept a God who calls their behavior to account. Atheism is a matter of human pride–the refusal to accept any mind higher than one’s own or any truths that go beyond the purview of physical science (especially physics). Some atheists, such as the late Antony Flew, were honest seekers of the truth, and he became a believer in a deistic God. Atheists who are really God-haters may also change their minds if they can overcome their hatred. There is a subset of atheists who are hard core, such as the majority of the members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as those who deign to assert that something can come from nothing. These individuals could see God face to face and deny His existence. They are like the dwarfs in C. S. Lewis‘s The Last Battle, who perceive the gold and jewels Aslan offers them as horse waste and straw. Anyone who asserts a clear contradiction in defense of atheism must be willfully blind. These same scientists will use logic and reason to attack the coherence of a theory they do not accept–yet they assert a blatant contradiction as being true. The only way I can explain that is that the scientists’ beliefs are an act of the will rather than primarily an act of the intellect. They have willed to reject God, and their assertion of contradiction follows. If asserting that something comes from nothingness is the only “argument” that an atheist gives for his position, then that atheist truly is desperate. Atheists who accuse theists of irrationality ought to look at themselves in a mirror first.
Gratiaetnatura's Blog 
Apr 23, 2012 @ 18:42:05
“without any deity reveal the desperation of atheists.”
When a physicist says ‘nothing’, of course, they mean something quite different from what laymen mean.
“Atheism is primarily about rebellion rather than reality–some people refuse to accept a God who calls their behavior to account.”
No, it really isn’t.
You can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, of course. But that doesn’t make it true.
Apr 23, 2012 @ 19:17:19
Of course I understand that a physicist does not mean by “nothing” literal nonbeing when the physicist is talking about a “false vacuum.” But when Hawking plays around with the term “true vacuum,” he does seem to be talking about nothingness and something coming from nothing. A “false vacuum” clearly is something–when particles and antiparticles are constantly formed and annihilating one another we are not talking about nothingness–but then physicists should stop saying “the universe arose from nothing” when they clearly mean something else. They are guilty of equivocation.
Of course there are other reasons people have for atheism–the problem of evil and suffering is probably the one that draws most laymen to atheism. For many scientists who believe that natural law, chance and necessity, explain everything, they argue that it is more parsimonious to reject God. Then there are two issues: (1) is the universe contingent? It appears to be–we can imagine an alternative universe or if you accept the multiverse theory, in another kind of multiverse.The second question is (2) if the universe is contingent, can it explain itself or does it require a Creator. All the contingent beings we encounter may or may not exist–they do not have necessity, either logical or metaphysical. Even the basic substrate of subatomic “particles,” whatever that means given quantum physics, is contingent, and thus requires a being that must exist to create and sustain them. Now the atheist will most likely reply that the universe is necessary–but then on what basis?
Apr 23, 2012 @ 19:27:56
“the problem of evil and suffering is probably the one that draws most laymen to atheism.”
Not in my experience.
The lack of evidence for religious claims draws most people to atheism.
Apr 23, 2012 @ 19:59:53
Of course we have been around different groups of people–most of the atheists I have met have appealed to the problem of evil as the reason for their atheism. One of my teachers during my year at Vanderbilt was more like those you know; that is, he did not believe that there was sufficient evidence for the existence of God. Most laypeople (non scientists) who are atheists that I have met appeal to the problem of evil. Most of the scientists I know are theists, but those I know who are atheistic appeal more to the evidential claims.
Apr 24, 2012 @ 00:54:42
“Near death, explained
New science is shedding light on what really happens during out-of-body experiences — with shocking results.” —http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/
“NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality.”–Mario Beauregard is associate research professor at the Departments of Psychology and Radiology and the Neuroscience Research
Center at the University of Montreal. He is the coauthor of “The Spiritual Brain” and more than one hundred publications in neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry.
So this can not be good news for atheists though of course it does not prove the existence of God. Perhaps atheists are like drug addicts or alcoholics; different reasons lead to these destructive behaviors. They are an investment of time, energy and money and not easily discontinued. Those that quit have had the experiences they needed. The rest continue on.
If we ask the atheist for his evidence for the non-existence of God he will generally prove that God would be quite unlike the God he would be. Which is interesting, But the task of being God may be hard for humans to comprehend, Is the universe really imperfect? How would one change it? And who but a great fool would dare?
Apr 24, 2012 @ 02:40:19
NDEs are a strong interest of mine; I have a couple of publsihed articles on them from about ten years ago. David Rousseau in the U.K. has some interesting papers on NDEs, and Pim van Lommel in the Netherlands has written a fascinating book on NDEs, though he depends, perhaps, a bit much on quantum entanglement. I do not know what an NDE is except that some cases seem clearly paranormal–but are they the result of a person’s own psi ability or are they really the soul separating from the body? The results of the U.N. funded study will be interesting when they come out.
Apr 24, 2012 @ 03:27:42
There is a passage in the New Testament that goes, when the silver cord is loosened and the golden bowl is broken. Presumably the author is speaking about an actual moment of death. But I imagine the silver cord can be stretched or loosened but without the golden bowl being broken. I think in older societies persons had more inner quiet to explore these subtle things. We are at a disadvantage. To me some dreams are not just recycling garbage from the daily life–but movement in a subtler world. Deep contemplative prayer can take one to a spiritual realm. Swedenborg for example was too intelligent and too good a scientist to be taken in by illusions and hallucinations. Jacob Boehme is another seer. These were remarkable men who knew the difference between fantasy and a more real realtiy. And then there are the yogis of India with their six thousand years old traditions and practices. No, all these many outstanding and disciplined minds can not be mistaken. If there is an after life then there must be a body of the after life. The soul must be enbodied. The New Testament is full of trues. As are many other remarkable writings. But we live in so much secularism with so many doubters that the most true things seem like dreams.
Apr 24, 2012 @ 15:27:36
The passage is at the end of the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. I find Swedenborg interesting; Huston Smith has an article asserting the Swedenborg’s experience were a kind of “natural knowledge” of the afterlife. That may be the case–I don’t know.
Apr 24, 2012 @ 03:10:02
The argument presented here assumes that atheists must accept that the universe comes from nothing. I am not sure they have to assume this premise for their worldview to work. Couldn’t they just as likely assume that the universe comes from something, though they don’t know what it is. That there are some unexplainable phenomena doesn’t seem to be inconsistent with an atheistic worldview.
Apr 24, 2012 @ 15:37:15
The position you mention above is at least logically coherent–and atheists should say something like what you suggest. But when some of the claim something comes from nothing, they equivocate and, in the case of Hawking, assert a logically impossible proposition. The issue for the atheist is whether contingent phenomena must be caused by something noncontingent. They may assert an infinite chain of contingent beings, but that is still contingent. I suppose a Quinean could argue that “contingent” and “necessary” are ways we carve up the world and not the way the world is–but then Quineans also need evidence for their assertion.
Apr 27, 2012 @ 00:59:53
I probably should have mentioned that I am not at all enthusiastic about the sort of atheism you outlined in your post. The position is a non-starter, both logically and intuitively. Unfortunately, as you also mention, it’s a common position taken up by atheists. I should know because I was appointed the advisor at my last school of the Student Secular Society — basically, a university student organization dedicated to the propagation of atheism.
I heard a lot of arguments similar to the one you raised in your post. Anyway, just thought I’d add that.
Apr 25, 2012 @ 23:17:44
I do think that atheism is an emotional position rather than intellectual. To approach the matter of religion and God intellectually one would want to determine why two pre-eminent 20th century thinkers, Wittgenstein and Godel, were both religiously and mystically inclined, Or why great scientist like Bohr, Einstein and Schrodinger were likewise drawn to those aspects. Surely these men can not be accused of being soft in the head or easily influenced. In fact I really wonder why some persons with enough status to get media mention even bother to state their position. Who cares? I suppose it gives comfort to other doubters. Wouldn’t agnostic be seen as a more mature and less arrogant position. I wonder how these people were able to exhaustively determine there was no God? I would like to see their ontological proof for the non-existence of God. Well, and here we are giving them attention. Maybe they suffer from “lack of attention syndrome”.
Apr 27, 2012 @ 01:07:43
John, I believe your working assumption is accurate. Atheism is a position dictated by personal sentiment rather than rational consideration. The trouble for the psychologist is how to explain the phenomenon.
One would like to think that it may have had something to do with the individual’s upbringing, i.e., a childhood development issue. But, of course, that’s not always the case. There are (I believe without citing actual cases) those who are drawn to atheism as adults who may not have experienced a traumatic event earlier in their life to warrant the inclination toward atheism. It may be an emotional response to the finitude of life. As death draws nearer, people may just feel that life is futile and Hobbesian. I, for one, would be keenly interested in learning more of the atheist’s predicament.
Your observation about many very intelligent folks being drawn to theism is quite astute. Antony Flew’s conversion is probably the one that is most widely known and perhaps the most dramatic (given what Flew said earlier in his life in print of his NDE).
Jan 05, 2013 @ 03:52:28
They have no proof for their position but they will say that their “proof” is the lack of evidence for God,which isn’t really proof at all! I just wish the atheists would go ahead and admit what we already know–that atheism requires F A I T H !!
Jan 05, 2013 @ 03:17:48
Reblogged this on Tnmusicman's Blog and commented:
Yes, too many atheists that I have encountered have said that even if God WAS real they still wouldn’t believe in Him nor would they worship Him. One of them had the gall to say “God would have to prove Himself worthy of their praise because they didn’t just give it out to any old god”
Can you believe the arrogance??
Jan 05, 2013 @ 15:50:16
The arrogance I can believe. It’s the reincarnation of the famous statement Milton attributed to Satan, “Non serviam”–“I will not serve.” There is one point with which I do agree with Augustine–pride is the primal sin.
Jan 07, 2013 @ 10:02:32
Agreed. We all have issues with pride (to a point) just some more so than others. Someone once told me that when I,as a Christian, get upset when atheists attack my beliefs, it’s really my pride causing me to become angry. They could be right. I don’t know if I will ever just ignore atheists mockery completely but perhaps I can remember that when God is attacked He doesn’t need me to try and defend Him.