Why atheists should not feel so smug

In principle, an atheist may feel smug by countering the supposed theistic assertion that: ‘Everything must have a cause for its existence’, with: ‘So what caused God?!’

In practice, no Muslim theologian (nor any Jewish or Christian one) has ever asserted this. Rather the theistic belief is: ‘Everything that comes into existence, from non-existence, must have a cause for its existence.’ God, however, did not ‘come into existence’. He necessarily exists. God’s eternal attribute of life is intrinsic to, and inseparable from, His holy Essence.


Categories: Atheism, Islam

43 replies

  1. In practice, no Muslim theologian (nor any Jewish or Christian one) has ever asserted this”. Of course not. That is the final, most logical step of the argument and it would deflate all that effort one has wasted to find nothing but empty claims.

    • So you’re an atheist. What is the evidence for your metaphysical truth claim?

      • Haha. Nice try. Funny thing about truth—it requires no belief. You are claiming there is a god then claiming what is the allowable evidence. But it all comes down to feelings. You “feel” while simultaneously avoiding the common senses that say otherwise.
        You make the claim back it up. But can you do it without more of the same circuitous belief?

      • I ask a self-confessed atheist:

        “What is the evidence for your metaphysical truth claim?”

        Answer: NOTHING.

        What a surprise!

      • I didn’t claim any metaphysical truth. Your being disingenuous again. I stated you make empty claims. If this is your go to defense mechanism it’s very smug and illiterate

      • I see you are philosophically naive. To claim as you do that there is no God is a metaphysical truth claim just as much as to claim there is a God.

        Atheists don’t get an epistemological free pass on this blog.

        So try again.

      • Oh, I see free passes are only for the host who makes claims without evidence.

      • If you could frame a question that no one could answer—that would be god. You’ve done it. It’s because the question is an excuse for a claim that can’t be proven.

      • He, and most other Atheists, do not claim that there is no God – only that they do not believe your unproven claims. 😛

      • A reminder: Atheists don’t get an epistemological free pass on this blog.

        So either put up or shut up.

      • Where did I make a metaphysical claim?

    • Sorry I forgot to say:

      this blog is for readers with an IQ above that of a retarded wombat.

      Have a nice day.

      • Apologetics 101—Name calling when you have no rebuttal. Ok, I’ve made no claim, but I’ll go ahead and play to make you happy.
        You claim there is this god in your article. The supreme first cause and creator that wasn’t caused himself. Easy answer.
        I have not seen this god. I have not heard this god. I have not felt this god. I can also more easily philosophize this god out of existence than into existence. You guys have had 2000+ years and have failed. So have you. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
        Since he’s not speaking to me I must pretend he’s real to not be a retarded wombat? On the other hand, I have not seen evidence that is compelling, therefore I don’t believe you.
        I have also noticed that Christianity and the Bible promise one thing but consistently produce the opposite. Therefore, based an very good evidence of outcomes and much bloodshed, the Bible is a lie and so is the Christian/Islam/Jewish theme.

      • Stunning evidence of design in nature. A Designer must exist. Sorry Darwin!

        These are the extraordinary molecular machines inside your body that make cell division possible. Animation by Drew Berry at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

      • This is pretty ignorant to assume some scientific mental wrangling made by self serving Christians. There are more than adequate rebuttals and demonstrations opposite your “video” that you watched. Do you also accept the scientific data on when life begins or climate change? Do you accept that scientists have created living cells out of inert matter, only after a few tries? There’s more to the picture than your elementary misunderstanding of science, IQ man.

      • And looking at your comments and likes it’s seems you use the term “readers” very generously. Not even believers read this crap, but I did see one “like” several posts ago, but I can only assume that was you being generous.

      • “Oh, I see free passes are only for the host who makes claims without evidence.”

      • Can any neo-Darwinist explain how these complex biological machines “gradually” evolved? They either exist as a whole to function or they don’t function at all. Miss one thing – it’s totally useless.

      • What else could they look like considering the environs they evolved in?

      • that’s not a scientific explanation – just a lazy throwaway.

      • My MENSA study group will get a chuckle out of that one. 😯

      • He’s looking up MENSA…haha

      • Having trouble spelling it?? 😕 😆

  2. Like your lazy claim without evidence? Then your lack of understanding biology seals the deal. You failed to answer the question. What should they look like? Your the one with the IQ here.
    I heard this argument about the human eye as well, but nearly everything has an eye. It’s not even special. Some even better eyes than the human. All adapted to their environment. They look exactly like they need to. They could not be any different given the circumstances they evolved. Some fish that live deep in the absence of light do not develop sight. So, no mystery here. Your perfect idea of symmetry and design is so full of flaws it only exists in a very narrow window, and sickly and poorly at best. Some god you have couldn’t even get it right.

    • So you think highly complex biological machines in cells came about just by chance? Without design? Tell me how did that happen?

      • Your make the claim that you know something special. How did your god do this? You ride on the coattails of science and try to take the credit, you must have some clever, secret revelation of how this was done.
        But you can’t do it. In fact god has gotten much smaller and more insignificant the more we ignore your and work on it. No biblical or Christian teaching has ever supplanted a scientific discovery, but you certainly like to claim ownership after a century or two of fighting it.

  3. Paul,
    “‘Everything that comes into existence, from non-existence, must have a cause for its existence”
    Can you give examples of things coming “into existence, from non-existence”?

    • First he would have to prove (using scientific theory) that there was ever nothing. There was never nothing. Even if there was, god could not come before consciousness.

    • Well what about yourself Andy ?
      Unless you are eternal I have to conclude you came into existence from non existence 😉

      • Greg,

        I’ll complete the argument I was trying to kick off above:

        The organisation of matter and energy that is me came into existence at some point and will cease at some point in time. We never see energy coming “into existence, from non-existence” – as far as we know there are always principles of conservation at work. We see various manifestations of energy changing form.

        So, in the statement ‘Everything that comes into existence, from non-existence, must have a cause for its existence.’, “thing” has to refer to a form of matter and energy, a transient and dynamic structure.

        So we can say “Every change in form of matter and energy must have a cause for the change”. Applying this to the universe as a whole we can say that the change in form that we observe as the “big bang” must have been preceded (caused) by previous states.

        The previous states may or may not have included a creator God, so the first cause argument does not have the weight that some theists think it does.

      • Surprisingly Andy, I agree!

      • A considered reply Andy.
        True that matter and energy are interchangeable (E = m x c^2) and that obeys conservation laws.
        I would agree it is likely that the Big Bang was preceded by something.
        But what that something is is a big debate in physics.
        And introducing a God does not solve the problem.

  4. Paul, that really is superb “hair splitting”. There is really only one “First Cause” argument. But accepting your version …
    You claim God didn’t come into existence, but must have always existed.
    You do this simply by *defining* God’s eternal existence.
    I would reply .. why can we not say that the Universe didn’t come into existence but has always existed. ? (The Big Bang is not necessarily the “start”)
    That certainly has as much claim to veracity as your claim .. indeed better because it does away with the need to invent an invisible Creator

  5. Again with the “biological machines”. I am afraid I am not as impressed by them as you are.
    3,000,000,000 years is a long time for evolution to work its magic.

    • ah so you believe evolution is magic! Yep, so much for serious science.

      • You’re special pleading, or your high IQ is so far above us you can’t catch the context of a simple metaphor.
        This is a joke.

      • dude you think science is just magic. God is a better explanation.

      • So god used…magic is a better explanation?
        Let’s pretend your right for a minute. Then this entire universe and earth is not a natural world at all, but a synthetic, not natural, created world? Funny, nature actually feels pretty natural. Science has some very good explanations for how this happened. Your shortcut is quitting at “god did it” accepts that you’ll never know so you make a claim that actually killed curiosity for 2 millennia. It’s a cheap excuse for lazy intellect. If you want to make a claim like that show me some evidence. That would be —some secret, new revelation we didn’t already know your privy to as a believer.

      • Of course I used “work its magic” as a turn of phrase. I had rather thought you were familiar with it. 😉
        With respect, you are very well informed on theology, but rather less well informed wrt science.
        Many things once regarded as magical or supernatural are now fully explained by science. Meteors, supernova, eclipses, northern lights, magnetism, … the list goes on and on.
        The undermining of religion by science is relentless and ongoing
        So the Argument from Wonder is not very effective 🙂

  6. Jump from perceived design in nature to one necessary all controlling designer god is a non sequitur.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: