An atheist named Ben recently commented on my article Something and Not Nothing: The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.

Theists post the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing” like its a profound question.

Ok, here’s a question: How can nothing exist? I’m yet to see a theist who can explain how “nothing” can exist. Its a dumb argument.

Quote: “The first cause is not matter and energy.” – Could you pls back up that statement with some evidence? How could you possibly know what the first cause is or isn’t when scientists with the best technological tools at their disposal are still scratching their heads over the same question?.. Oh i get it. When Christians don’t have an answer, they simply fill it with their God. Fantastic dark age thinking: Thor is also the cause of thunder, you know’… dark age method…

If God doesn’t need a first cause, then why does energy? Maybe energy always existed.

Comment by ben

Here is my response to Ben’s thoughts:

Hi Ben,
Your perplexed response I think gets at the heart of the issue with the Cosmological argument. We are looking here for the best explanation for the data. We are not filling in the gaps as you say (an ad hominem designed to make theists look stupid). The data is clear – something exists. I do not have to explain how “nothing” exists since something does, but I do need a decent explanation as to how something does exist.

So the options are essentially 2 – either matter / energy has always existed (or caused itself to exist, or popped into existence without a cause) OR a living, eternal, intelligent being caused the universe to exist. BOTH options have problems (why do you pretend that Christians do not admit this?) However, what is the BEST explanation based on scientific data? Well, what is the data? 1) Living beings exist. 2) Intelligent beings exist. 3) The universe appears to be designed (DNA, irreudcible complexity, fine-tuning, ect.)

So, sure, energy might be uncaused and eternal, but energy has a hard time explaining 1, 2, and 3 above. Why? Life does not come from non-life. Intelligence does not come from non-intelligence. And design does not come from chaos.

So here is basic science, Ben. Follow the evidence where it leads. Sure, it is difficult understanding an eternal being (God), but that is not our point. Our point is to show that God – a super intelligence – is (from a scientific point of view), the best explanation for the cause of the universe. In other words, theists do not maintain that we can show how God does not need a first cause, but we are showing that nothing ELSE makes sense without God standing AS the first cause.

You do not have to agree, but I do encourage atheists to quit pretending Christians are stupid, or in the “dark ages” for believing this. After all, the evidence is clear, and it appears the atheist is the one who believes against it. Thanks again foy your response, Ben, and if you’d like to talk further I’d be glad to.

PS – It is okay to change your point-of-view and become a believer. Anthony Flew, the prominent atheist who recently changed his position to theism did so because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.