Atheism's Something from Nothing Equates to Everything is Nothing

Because the universe exists, atheists must posit a reasoned explanation for how the universe came to be. As atheism does not permit a creator of the universe, the universe either 1) always existed or 2) came from something else, or 3) came from nothing.

1) The Universe always existed - is not possible for the universe currently exists in a state of tension in which diverse parts have not yet reached a state of equilibrium. As an infinitely old universe would be in a state of equilibrium in accord with the laws of entropy, the universe then had a beginning.

2) The Universe came from something else - is an explanation that only delays the answer to another part of the same universe. The answer is sophistic by purporting to explain the universe only in terms of the universe. Such an answer is a logically circular self-creation myth.

3) The Universe came from nothing - is an explanation which is self-contradictory. For non-being (not B)  as a cause of being (B) in the effect. Also, non-being cannot be a cause of an effect which is being. For a lack of the same being is not affected in the same being.

Argument 1) -

If we assume atheism insists the universe came from nothing, non-being is a real cause of the universe and being of the universe is a real effect of non-being. 

The negation of the same as a cause is then the same as an effect. 

Therefore non being and being are the same. 

So if everything came from nothing.

Then everything is nothing.

Argument 2) -

If atheists insist the universe came from nothing, nothing is understood both as non-being, but also as non-being acting in the manner of being, to be the cause of the beginning of the universe as an effect of non-being. 

Non-being as the cause of being, is then both non-being and being. 

Non-being is non being in itself, but also non-being is being in relation to the origin of the universe. 

Yet, the universe, which in the materialist worldview is everything, is being. 

But because the universe is an effect of nothing, the universe is also being in itself, but also non-being in relation to nothing as the origin of the universe. 

For the effect is always a similitude of the cause. 

The universe is then both being and non-being in diverse manners. 

Yet if the universe is non-being, then the universe is both everything and nothing.

Conclusion - The conclusion of the atheist's radical assumption of the universe from nothing is the universe is both everything and nothing is a very curious outcome from a radical atheistic position. Atheism is a radical ontological curiosity shop.

A Paradox Involved with the all Holy Creator with knowledge of the Consequent Creature's Sin.

The existence of God may be proven from reason in at least five ways according to St Thomas Aquinas as elaborated in natural theology. A conclusion of natural theology is, God is pure act, or God is act without limit. Following this conclusion one may also conclude the God of reason is also holiness without limit.

God is act without limit.
Act without limit is all perfection had simply without limit.
Personhood is a perfection.
God is personhood without limit.
Therefore God is a divine person.
A person is a subject as a spirit.
For a spirit is that which exists and acts without a body.
A spirit acts to know via the intellect and love via the will.
Therefore, God acts from intellect and will.
But because God is pure act, God's will is act without defect and thereby without fault.
And what is without fault is impeccable.
And what is impeccable is holy.
Therefore God's will is holy.
Because all is simple in God, what God has, God is.
God has holiness, then God is holiness.
And what is all holy is without sin.
1) Therefore God cannot sin.

It has been revealed that God created the universe which includes free secondary agents such as angels and men.
Both angels and men can and have sinned.
But angels and men exist because God chose to create.
And because God is all knowing, God chose to create creatures He knew would sin.
Therefore sin exists because God acted as a cause of creatures.
And what is a principal cause is a cause of all that follows upon the principle.
Sin follows upon the principal cause of God acting as the creator of all creatures.
Therefore God is a cause of sin, and as a cause is responsible for sin.
2) God then in some manner, sins.

Discussion - Therefore there is either a contradiction or a paradox that follows upon the existence of God as all holy and God who creates creatures who sin in accord with the denial and affirmation of God sinning in 1) and 2) above respectively. For God as all holy has nothing to do with sin. Yet God as creator is involved and in some manner responsible for sin. There is, however, no contradiction, for God does not sin formally by acting to create any free agent. For sin only requires that a free agent act unlawfully. And as creatures are free and act unlawfully, the imputation of sin is applied directly, or formally to the creature that misuses the free will to act against the eternal law. God is then responsible for sin as creator, but no sin is imputed to God as the principal cause of creation.
For God as the principal cause is not the secondary cause that acts to sin.

The apparent contradiction as shown above in 1) and 2) is really a paradox of God acting both without and as a cause of sin. For a paradox is an apparent contradiction, in which the affirmation and negation occur in different respects. 1) God is all holy formally according to His nature and will without defect. But God is also 2) materially responsible for sin through the act of creation which provides the circumstance for sin to exist.

Therefore the all-holy God who creates involves a paradox of holiness and sin in relation to the same God.

Some False Assumptions Contained within Dr Bart Erhman's Argument for Agnosticism.

The agnostic may argue that there is too much unjust suffering and death in the world for a truly loving Christian God to exist. Dr Bart Erhman is one such agnostic who argues that God is not loving because of the many natural disasters, suffering and death of infants. Dr Erhman proposes his argument from time 49:00 in the video below - 

Mormon Stories #904: Dr. Bart Ehrman - New Testament Scholar

The problem with such arguments is the agnostic assumes too much in the argument which must be ignored for the argument to be sound. Some of the false assumptions included in the argument are -

1) The assumption of Man's Pure Nature - The suffering of mankind, and in particular, the suffering of babies and children is an injustice caused by God which assumes those men and children should not suffer. But to assume the men and babies should not suffer without injustice being incurred, infers men and babies have a pure nature that does not have any debt owing to justice. The assumption of pure nature included in the agnostic's argument is used to conclude that God is unjust and therefore the Christian God cannot exist. But because pure nature is assumed, but not proven, the unsound premise that an injustice occurred in suffering and death does not lead to the conclusion that God is unjust, and therefore God is not the Christian God.

2) The assumption of Suffering and Death as an Injustice - If the Christian God is the real God who controls the universe, suffering and death occur for several reasons. 1) Mankind is spiritually united in the universal problem of original sin. Men and babies are subject to the consequences of original sin caused by the first parents, which causes suffering and death. The evils of suffering and death are positively caused by sin and only permitted to exist by God as a consequence of sin. It is precisely because the Christian God does love men, that God does permit men to suffer and die. If God did not love men, then men would continue to sin without any just punishment for sin. 2) Suffering is redemptive and the suffering and death that appears to be unjust is permitted as a redemptive act to save men from the consequences of actual sin. 3) God knows all the causes within the universe and knows all of the consequences of sin, suffering, and death and we men do not know all of the causes. To reduce the problem of suffering and death down to an argument from injustice is to ignore the knowledge that only the transcendent God has of the way the universe operates. 

By the agnostic ignoring the Christian revelation concerning the nature of suffering and death the agnostic has arrived at a false conclusion concerning the lack of evidence for the loving Christian God, when in fact that same God has told humanity of the reasons for suffering and death, which are ignored by the agnostic. For the agnostic to conclude that the Christian God does not exist, the agnostic must ignore the information given by the Christian God about suffering and death, and then conclude the Christian God does not exist.

3) The assumption of God's Acts Adjudged by the Agnostic only in Accord with what Occurs in this Life - The argument from suffering and death assumes suffering and death is the totality of the story, when in fact the totality of the story is a priori either rejected or ignored by the agnostic. The totality of the story, which includes the reality of suffering and death, also includes the reality of sin, atonement, heaven and hell and just payment for sin. If the agnostic included the totality of the story into account when forming an argument concerning the apparent injustice of suffering and death, the agnostic may have a case for the Christian to answer. But because the agnostic, such as Dr Bart Erhman has ignored the Christian revelation concerning the meaning and relevance of suffering and death in Christianity, the agnostic argument is irrelevant to the agnostic's conclusion that the Christian God does not exist.

4) The assumption of Suffering and Death is Only Measured by Reason without Reference to the Supernatural - The agnostic uses reason to arrive at his conclusion about the consequences of suffering and death. But the agnostic has failed to include into the argument the reality that the Christian God is transcendent and can permit and act beyond human reason, for divine reasons that are beyond human comprehension. By the agnostic assuming only reason is required to account for suffering and death, the agnostic has an a-priori commitment to a rationalistic god, which is not the Christian God. In short, the agnostic assumes a rationalistic god and arrives at the conclusion that the transcendent God of Christianity cannot exist. The assumption of the rationalistic god is unsound.

5) The assumption of Suffering and Death as the Ultimate Evil - The agnostic assumes suffering and death is the ultimate evil, when in fact such evil is not ultimate. The agnostic assumes suffering and death is a reality that exists that could be prevented by an infinitely powerful God who loves man. But the assumption of suffering and death is the ultimate evil, ignores the reality of sin as the ultimate evil, which has its resolution in the mystery of suffering, death and resurrection, final judgement and glory. The agnostic assumes an unsound premise that suffering and death are the greatest evils in the universe.

6) The assumption of Suffering and Death is Only Measured by Reason without Reference to Mystery - Christianity contains many mysteries and supernatural realities that must be ignored by the agnostic. According to Christianity, creation, sin, suffering, death, resurrection and the action of the divine in the universe are all secrets that are never fully understood. The agnostic must ignore the aspect of mystery associated with suffering and death as an assumption within the argument to arrive at the false conclusion, that the Christian God does not exist.

7) The assumption of Materialism associated with the Problem of Suffering and Death - If suffering and death is an injustice, then the agnostic argues, an injustice occurs in this life without reference to the next life. But to ignore the next life is to assume a materialist anthropology of man, which is false. For man is a composite of body and soul and will continue to exist after death. 

8) The assumption of the false God who cannot make a Divine Judgement to Permit Suffering and Death -  The agnostic assumes God does not have the authority to permit suffering and death, even if suffering and death appear to be very unjust to us mere humans. Yet if the Christian god is real, He is sovereign over creation and most certainly does have the authority and power to make judgments over creation. The agnostic assumes a false god when making the argument for the falsity of the Christian God.

Because of these and several other possible false assumptions, the agnostic argument proposed by Dr Bart Erhman is false. Dr Erhman is an agnostic, in part, based upon the false presupposition that suffering and death excludes the existence of the loving Chrisitan God. Contrarily, in fact, it is because the Christian God exists, acting within a fallen universe that suffering and death also exists. suffeirng and death are strong evidences for the existence of the Christian God, when Dr Erhman mistakenly argues against said evidence.

An Argument for the Moderate Number of Scientific Facts as having a Superstitious Nature.

Science contains much that is contrary, due to the nature of the inductive method which permits many and various explanations for the same observations. The various explanations infer several or many causes posited to exist, that may in fact not be real. If not real, science is then open to scientific explanations that contain causes that do not have the power to cause the effects observed. Such explanations are then aligned with a superstitious understanding of reality.

If a scientist claims there is evidence for a theory that contains false causes, the purported scientific evidence is only evidence for a superstitious theory, and consequently is only superstitious evidence. The observation may not be superstitious, such as the observation of a galaxy. But the claim that the observation is evidence for a scientific theory is itself a superstitious claim of superstitious evidence.

The scientific claim like saying a man claps his hands and the door opens. The academy invents a scientific theory that accounts for the opening of the door through the clapping hands causing the door to open. The clapped hands are observed and the observation is claimed as evidence for the theory. The science theory however falsely assigns causation to the clapping hands when the cause of the door closing was the wind. The claim for the clapping hands as evidence for the door closing is only a superstitious claim of superstitious evidence for a superstitious theory.

Science history bears witness to the existence and subsequent removal of scientific theories. Science history then bears strong testimony to the existence of many theories that propose either non-existence or false or inadequate causes to account for the observations. Each scientific theory that is debunked is evidence for the ongoing existence of models and scientific understandings of the world that assign causes that are in some manner false. As the proposed causes are false, the debunked theories were accepted at least for some time as having explanatory value when in fact the theories were false. Such falsity within science theories provides strong support for the superstitious nature of science and the associated claims of scientific facts.

Even if a theory is not ever debunked, competing theories that purport to account for the same or similarly associated observations infer that one or more of the competing theories are superstitious. For example, the claims that observations that confirm the existence of gravitational lensing associated with general relativity theory are observations that do not match other contrary theories such as Newtonian mechanics, which does not require or predict any gravitational lensing. We may also posit, say 10-20 predictions made by general relativity theory that are not predicted by other theories. We may also posit 10-20 predictions made by two or more other similarly associated physics theories that are not predicted by general relativity theory. The accumulation of predictions made by several competing, contrary but similar theories implies the empirical sciences have a moderate number of so-called scientific facts that are in fact only observations subject to a method that causes said observations to take on a superstitious nature.

Conclusion - Within the empirical sciences, there is a moderate number of scientific facts, that due to the inductive method that permits several explanations for the same observations, have a superstitious nature.

An Argument for Much Suffering of the Separated Soul After Death.

Man knows the nature of bodies in the universal. For example, the statement - Peter ran to the shop, infers the words, Peter, ran, and shop are all words in the universal. For the universal is one said of many and the above statement may be made of many men called Peter, many acts of running and many shops. A defining characteristic of the universal is the universal is had without any individuating notes. For example, a tree has a place, height, shape, and colour as individuating notes of this singular tree existing in the concrete. But the universal tree does not have any individuating notes but accounts for all trees, each of which is singular and has individuating notes in the concrete. The universal is then not found in the concrete and singular, or material, but only in a manner that is immaterial. And what is immaterial is not physical, but spiritual. Man's intellect as a power to know in the universal is then a power that performs an act that is immaterial. And because there is due proportionality between the act and the power, the power is as immaterial as the act. The human intellect is then an immaterial or spiritual power.

But a power is a can do, which resides in a substance. For a can do, is an accident and an accident always resides in another from which it attains its being. For example, the quantity of a body is an accident that resides in the substance of the body. Similarly, any power to act is also caused by the prior existence of the substance. Therefore if the power is immaterial, the substance in which the power resides must also in some manner be immaterial. As the power is immaterial within a human body that is in the concrete and not immaterial. Man is then substantially physical and material, but in another manner substantially immaterial. The manner in which man is immaterial is according to substance and according to a substance that has an immaterial form. For a form is an act, and a substance with a form as the root cause of an immaterial power is then a form had of the substance. Man then has a substantial form as the root cause of man's immaterial powers. The substantial form of man is the immaterial soul, which is spiritual.

As the spiritual is not composed of physical parts, the spiritual soul continues to exist after death which is an act of separation of body and soul. The ongoing existence of the human soul then infers man continues to live, have knowledge and love after death. As the soul continues to exist after death, the soul has a life in accord with the nature of the soul and a state of the soul as determined by the ultimate end freely chosen by the soul when the man was alive.

If the man when alive chose to sin mortally, the man chose to act disconformed to the eternal law and love a created good above God, who is himself the good. By sinning mortally, the man has acted to subordinate all of his loves to the created good, loved above God. As all loves are subordinated to the ultimate created good willed in mortal sin, the man is unable to love God above all creatures, unless the man is moved again by God for the man to love God above all creatures again. When the man dies in mortal sin, the man continues to incorrigibly love a creature above the good, for God only acts to correct man's ultimate loves in this life as a grace (or gift) and not in the next. After death, as the will of the separated soul is always fixed towards loving above all other loves, that created good which is unnatural to love, the separated soul continues to love in a manner that is disconformed to the eternal law, who is God himself. The separated soul is then ordered away from God who is the good, as the ultimate love of man. But what is ordered away from the good, is ordered towards a lack of good, which is evil.

Yet when a man is ordered away from God as the ultimate good, and thereby to always act in an evil manner, the man suffers that which is unnatural as a punishment for sin. As the results of mortal sin in man, man in the next life is in an unnatural state, and what is unnatural is against the nature of man and against the nature of the good. What is against the nature of man always causes man to suffer, for the unnatural always acts against the nature of man, who naturally desires the good. The complete loss of the ultimate good as a consequence of mortal sin infers an immense suffering for those who die in a state of mortal sin. For a separated soul in mortal always has a disordered love away from the good. The separated soul always acts in an unnatural manner, and thereby acts contrary to the nature of man. But to always act contrary to the nature of man is to act against the good. And to act against the good is to act as to incur an evil. As the loss of love of the greatest good corresponds to the greatest evil, the separated soul in the state of mortal sin will suffer the greatest evil.

If a man dies without mortal sin, the man has naturally ordered his will towards God as the greatest good. But man can and does sin against nature whilst alive in a manner that is not mortally sinful, but only venially sinful, whereby man continues to love God as the greatest good, but loves a creature in a disordered manner in a particular moral act. If man acts to sin venially there is a debt of nature incurred which must be restored in accord with natural justice. For when a man sins, natural justice is breached and requires restitution. For example, a man breaks a neighbours windows, and natural justice demands the window be repaired. As men frequently breach natural justice (seven times a day), there is an accumulation of a natural debt made by men each time a man sins venially.

When a man dies without mortal sin and has his will ordered towards the good, man is then naturally ordered towards the good. The natural ordering towards the good enables the man's separated soul to avoid the penalty of suffering incurred by mortal sin. But because the good naturally requires the debt of sin be accounted for, a natural punishment ensues after death until the debt of venial sin is paid in full. As the debt is caused by man, the living part of man is naturally punished until the injustice is remitted. It is therefore within the nature of man, who has free will and has the ability to easily sin venially to suffer a natural punishment after death to account for venial sin.

Conclusion - Men can and do commit mortal and venial sin in this life. Consequently, due to the consequences of sin, men after death naturally suffer in accord with a deformity of disordered love within the will caused by sin. The suffering continues until the deformity in the will is totally removed. In a separated soul with mortal sin, the soul continues forever with an uncorrectable disordered ultimate love. For the separated soul in mortal sin naturally loves itself above God and no act within the separated soul can cause the ultimate love to change to re-order the soul's ultimate love to appetise God above creatures.

The separated soul who has committed venial sin(s), has the ultimate love of the will directed towards God. Such a soul is ordered in accord with the nature of man to have his loves subordinated to that of God. Yet the separated soul's will is not impeccable and has some disordered attachment to creatures that is not correctly ordered towards God as the good. Such a separated soul may have such disordered loves removed from the will which are accidental and subordinated to the love of God as the true ultimate good of the soul.

The sufferings of the separated soul in the next life are intense, for the soul no longer exists within the body but exists as nakedly exposed to reality. The separated soul is then subject to the direct action of the divine agent without any physical causes involved. As the soul is the formal cause of life of man, the soul is most sensitive to any cause contrary to the good of life. Therefore because the soul is the most sensitive part of man, the sufferings experienced by the soul are in proportion to the nature of punishment and the sensitivity of the soul. As God always acts conaturally within creation, the just punishment given to the soul is connatural to the debt of sin (which may be great), and the sensitivity of the soul. Therefore, from the manner in which God acts within creation, and the sensitivty of the soul it is probable, from reason alone, that the separated soul which has an attachment to sin, suffers much in the next life.

A Problem of Atheism as a Denial of the Good Concludes to Man as Evil.

Theism concludes that God does exist.
Monotheism concludes that God is being.
Therefore God is good.

But what is of nature is of itself.
As God is of nature good, then God is of itself the good.
Atheism concludes that God is not the good.
But if God is not the good, then there is no proper account for the existence of the good.
For is the existence of God is being is denied, then the existence of the cause of the good is also denied.
For no creature is the good, as a creature only has good and has being.
Then when atheism denies the existence of God, atheism denies the existence of the good.

Therefore if atheism is true, the good does not exist.
But man always acts for the good.
For the will is the appetite for understood good and the concupiscible and irascible appetites are sensible appetites for sensed good.
Man then acts for things that have good.
But things that have good are things directed towards the good.
For the imperfect is for the perfect.
Then things that have good are ordered towards goodness itself.
Therefore, because man acts for good things, man always acts for the good.
But according to atheism, the good does not exist.
Then man does not act for the good.
Therefore atheism concludes to acts of man that do not exist.
Therefore atheism concludes to an inhuman understanding of the nature of man.
For if man does not act for the good, man acts for a lack of good, which is evil.
Therefore, because man does not act for the good, according to atheism, man is always evil.

Discussion - Because man always acts for goodness, man has a natural appetite for the good contrary to atheism. As man has a natural appetite for the good, man is able to attain to the good contrary to the conclusion of atheism, which says man cannot attain to the good, for the good does not exist and man can then only ever attain to evil. The natural conclusion derived from atheism infers atheism is both false and evil. for atheism makes man out to be something opposed to what man is - a substance that acts for the good.

The Reduction of Atheism to the Absurdity of Something from Nothing for Nothing

Theism concludes that God exists.
Atheism concludes that God does not exist.
Therefore according to atheism, the existence of the universe must be accounted for without a divine creator.
The universe either always existed or the universe came into existence from nothing.
If the universe always existed, all physical parts of the universe would be in the state of lowest order and energy (a state of universal equilibrium) according to the laws of entropy that dictate a physical system always tends towards equilibrium.
As the universe is not in a state of universal equilibrium, the universe is of finite age and must have had a beginning.
The universe that had a beginning either came from something or from nothing.
If the universe came from something, the universe was made from itself, which absurd, for no thing can exist before it exists to make itself exist.
The universe came from nothing is the only other available option for the atheist.
If the universe came from nothing, the universe exists and acts.
But acts are for ends.
The universe acts for ends.
Ends are subordinated to ultimate ends.
The universe exists for an ultimate end.
The ultimate end has a similitude to the origin of the universe.
For the origin of a thing is the principle of the thing.
And the principle of a thing is the ultimate cause of all acts of the thing.
The thing will tend to always act in accord with the principle of the thing.
Nothing is the principle of the universe.
The universe will tend to act in accord with nothing.
The universe acts from nothing.
But to act from nothing is to tend towards nothing.
To tend towards nothing is to have an ultimate end of the universe as nothing.
The ultimate end of the universe is nothing.
Therefore according to atheism, the universe is from nothing, for nothing.
Therefore something is from nothing for nothing.