Doesn’t that sound like the old beliefDoesn’t that sound like the old belief that people use to have about spontaneous generation?

So here are some quotes from well-known atheists that make you wonder if they believe in reverse evolution back to the “old days”?

Many atheists refuse to admit they believe the entire universe came into being from nothing, because it is a scientific impossibility and they recognize how silly it sounds. If everything didn’t come from nothing, their alternative is to say that creation (nature) created itself. However, a thing cannot make itself. To do so would mean that it had to pre-exist before it existed, and therefore it didn’t create itself because it was already in existence. (For where the universe came from, see Isa. 34:4  and Isa. 45:18 comments.) Here is a list of some who have admitted to believing that nothing created everything:

1.      “It is now becoming clear that everything can—and probably did—come from nothing.” —Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England

2.      “Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.” —Cornell University’s “Ask an Astronomer”

3.      “Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing…” —

4.      “Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.” —Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University

5.      “Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with…Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.” —Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii; author of God: The Failed Hypothesis

6.      “Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things—perhaps even the entire universe—can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes.” —Mark I. Vuletic, Creation Ex Nihilo—Without God

7.      “To understand these facts we have to turn to science. Where did they all come from, and how did they get so darned outrageous? Well, it all started with nothing.” —”Fifty Outrageous Animal Facts,” Animal Planet

8.      “To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something.” —Discover Magazine “Physics & Math/Cosmology”

9.      “It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally.” —Alan Harvey Guth, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Discover Magazine

10.     “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” —Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale


Something from Nothing? — 6 Comments

  1. Sigh!

    Despite all the problems you list in the article, most working scientists, some of whom are Nobel laureates, accept cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution.

    There must be something wrong here when the best and brightest this world can offer can make such an obvious mistake. Certainly if you can point out the fallacies of a scientific world view these geniuses must surely “get it”.


    They know something that you do not. Most likely a whole lot of something that you do not.

    And you call us Atheists arrogant.

    This article is a wonderful example of wilfull ignorance. Ignorance is not something to be ashamed of but to be wilfully ignorant is to be essentially dishonest. The answers are out there you just choose not to look.

    When you decide to be honest and really seek out the answers you can start with

    Maybe you should try actually reading some of Richard Dawkins books instead of dishonestly quote mining ( them. Stephen Hawking’s book “The Grand Design” is also worthwhile.

    I keep trying to tell you I’m ahead of you. I’ve read all these books. So now what you think is a brilliant article, to me is just a facile, dishonest and desperate bit of tripe.

    This comment will now disappear never to see the light of day. Why do I bother?

    • Being a nobel laureate, or very bright, or highly intelligent has no bearing upon truth. Many people agree that Stalin and Hitler and many other despots, atheistic or otherwise were intelligent. But how did they use their intelligence? Many criminals have been very intelligent. Does that make them right? No RIGHT is right and Truth is truth and it cannot be changed by majority opinion. Opinion after all is just opinion, not fact.

      Perhaps Mr. Neo-Atheist, these people mentioned in another article are more intelligent than you B.C.[perhaps an understatement!] and they from my reading of them did not believe in the majority deciding what truth was, but truth is discovered when incontestable experimentation or evidence is proven repeatedly by all researchers.

      “Dick” Dawkins is simply a smart man who has chosen to be an atheist even against any evidence to the contrary. Atheism is a belief system. A belief sysem in there being “no god” except perhaps the god of intelligent atheists.

      These people were and are intelligent too and disagree with you and “Dick” Dawkins.

      BC, do you think that perhaps if you had an IQ test that you would be found smarter than Lee Strobels, Peter Hitchens and Anthony Flew, as well as C.S. Lewis and J R Tolkien [oh and now we have to add Lew Wallace] just to

      mention a few that pop to mind?

      Antony Flew, former atheist..

      C.S. Lewis, professor, writer, and atheist from the age of 15

      J R Tolkien, writer of The Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, poet and professor ….

      Lee Strobel, journalist, Master of Studies in Law and former atheist ..

      Peter Hitchens, journalist, author and former atheist

      The reason no atheist, including BC will answer these questions is because even tho they claim to be smarter in general than people who are not atheists or who are believers, they do not want to specifically compare their supposed intelligence to intelligent people who are NOT atheists and/or who are believers.

      They usually take the “bully” approach in my experience. They pick on someone who disagrees with them but who does not have either the intelligence, or the wisdom or simply the skills of writing that they have, and mock that individual. It is called the Bully approach because that is what bullies do. They pick on those that are not strong enough to fight back.

      All atheists have faith, most of them in the “god” of science. I believe in repeatable, inarguable, science. I do not believe in contestable, non-repeatable, theory-based “science” which uses models that can be flawed. Especially when the “anomalies” they throw out of their data indicate that their data are incorrect.

      All of the books BC regards as being ahead could be considered being behind. When a person is traveling in the wrong direction, looking behind on those traveling in the opposite direction, appears to them that they are leading. In fact it could be that they are racing the wrong way on the track of life.

      In fact all of the books BC mentions have been refuted by credible people, often mentioned elsewhere in this blog.

      Yes BC, you do know some things I do not. And on the contrary I know many things you do not. For example you did not even realize that the term “atheist” meant someone who DENIES the existence of God. You did not know that Soviet Russia led by Stalin was a declared atheist state. You somehow thought that all autocratic dictatorships which were led by declared atheists were not atheists. You also gave examples of wonderful “atheist” countries which no where in their constitution do they declare they are atheists.

      BC, you also somehow still think that science “facts” are decided by consensus. Going away back before the scientific method, the consensus was that that the sun, the moon, the stars all revolved around the earth. That is what appears to be true, but we know it is not. It took mathemeticians like Copernicus and Galileo to show they were not but instead the earth revolves around the sun.

      The only thing in science that sometimes is determined by consensus are theories to be tested. In most cases these theories cannot be tested experimentally. Therefore we may never know the truth about them. It was a breakthrough when the scientific method was agreed upon. It still is.

      BC, if I were being childish, I could list numerous books I have read that you have not read. What would that prove? That my father was stronger than your father?

      It has increasingly been evident that the “new atheists” are arrogant, thinking and declaring themselves smarter than others who are not atheists. Madelyn Murray Ohair was so much that way that she turned into a hate-mongering witch so much so that her Son William Murray became a Christian as he was tired of living with hate. I have also noticed that Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and many other atheists are mockers of others beliefs. Is that an intelligent thing to do? Or is that their ignorant choice? When you hate-monger and mock, you fall right in with your heroes and with the free-thinkers called Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong-il to mention only a few.

      Fundamental to civilization is the root word “civil”. We need more than politeness to have a civil society. But etiquette is a good place to start. Unless we want to start contemporary caveman wars. This journalist points this out in his article in the Vancouver Sun.

    • Actually this is an example of non-factual expressed opinions. A way of putting down the commentator rather than answering the questions raised. Ad hominem attacks, unproven statements often abound in the comments of neo-atheists. They seem to think if they have read something that makes it true. Rather than take an issue and present why the issue is wrong what does BC do? Flaming words without any evidence for his opinion.

      My question for BC was simply “Does he think he is smarter than these men?” Why did he not just answer the question?

      Reason One – If he does agree that they are smarter, then he will have to admit maybe their opinions are more sustantive and accurate than his and that their ideas are possibly valid and his invalid.

      Reason Two – If he says that HE is smarter, then obviously he is on a trip with some new substance. Why? Because where is the evidence that shows he is smarter? As far as I know he has never been declared an expert in any particular field relating to the topics at hand. And even if he was, just because a person wrote a book, or has an excellent reputation with the majority of people in his discipline also does not make him right. Sometimes we trust smart people to do smart things always when in reality sometimes they come up with very un-smart ideas.

      BC has told me that he has read the Bible through but he either does not have a good memory or he is believing someone else he considers an expert for his ideas that he has about the Bible. They are actually very immature and mythical ideas taken totally out of the context of the Bible and also the context of the world that the Bible was written for.

  2. BC says: Despite all the problems you list in the article, most working scientists, some of whom are Nobel laureates, accept cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution.
    Evidence BC Gives? NONE. Just his opinion that the rest of us are suppose to take on faith.

    CP – There is demonstrable evolution for example with Eohippus believed to be the forerunner of the modern horse. I am simply pointing out that evolution is not necessarily logical and reasonable all the time and in a large part I am quoting scientists. The majority used to believe from all the evidence they had that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Was the majority right? No! The majority was wrong about so-called inactive elements. And I could go on. The majority is often wrong. To swallow the scientific Kool-aid as if everything the MAJORITY of scientists believe came right from the throne of God, is a belief system, which you might call Science-ology. Majorities don’t cut it in science. Only facts do. And as you can see even many scientists, doubt parts of the Science-ology belief system. That’s the point.

    I personally believe in suspending judgement when there are lots of anomalies. I love science as the study of what we see on earth and attempt to explain how it happened. But true scientists reserve the right to doubt whether everything called science is fact. I heard a scientist once say that most people make up their mind after looking at what they have found and say, “That’s it!” Then he said, that where others stop, that is where we start!

    In other words, they don’t stop at things that the majority may believe. That is their starting point for further study.

    So would you like to get back on topic instead of writing tripe ad hominem attacks? Why must a grown man engage in such childish insults, put-downs, red herrings?
    Any student should know that when a question is asked, the normal procedure is to answer the question or admit you cannot, not attack your teacher 🙂

  3. BC still seems to think he is smarter than the people I mentioned about there being a God. He won’t admit that he is behind them. BC’s problem is that instead of talking about the article, he uses red herring techniques to avoid what is mentioned in the article in the same way he avoids admitting that he may not be as smart as …

    Antony Flew, former atheist..

    C.S. Lewis, professor, writer, and atheist from the age of 15 …

    J R Tolkien, writer of The Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, poet and professor ….

    Lee Strobel, journalist, Master of Studies in Law and former atheist ..

    Peter Hitchens, journalist, author and former atheist …

    “Now if you do believe your IQ and research method and intelligence is beyond that of the above men after reading carefully their conversions to Christianity [with the exception of Tolkien], may I suggest that you have sold yourself short and should have followed in their footsteps as far as academic accomplishments or more accurately surpassed their accomplishments?”

  4. BC still makes the claim that he is way ahead of me because he has read many books on his favorite beliefs.
    So I ask him “BC have you read the stories of Peter Hitchens, Anthony Flew, C. S. Lewis, J. R. Tolkien, and Lee Strobels?

    So BC since it is hard for you to answer my questions I will make it simpler for you. I am not going to claim to be way ahead of you but I am looking behind me and seeing you back there somewhere 🙂

    Is it possible that the above 5 Christians [4 were former atheists] could be right? Now that’s pretty simple isn’t it? Just say “Yes” or “No”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments Protected by WP-SpamShield Spam Blocker