One. We are not certain why there is something rather than nothing, however, we do know the classical laws do not always apply to quantum mechanics and relativity, so we know that the possibility of the universe coming from seemingly nothing is entirely possible. We cannot see past time, so we connot be certain of the universes true origins. Two, the possiblity of a phenomenon occuring is not based on its complexity, but rather if it follows the laws of the universe. Also, you are overly dramatic when you talk about the complexity of life. Yes, life is very complex, but it wouldn't be considered overly complex. You are purposely trying to make the origins of life and evolution seem impossible even though that is far from the truth. Lastly, every time you asked a question, and tried to explain it, you ultimately concluded it with an assumption. You tried to relate entropy to a spiritual ream because you don't understand how entropy can be turned into order. You also assume that our lives are some how special and cannot possibly be described through the laws of physics and you simply disregard evolution after assuming a god exists. You said (in a nutshell) that if God uses evolution as a way to create life, then that God would be cruel and that just isn't true, so evolution must be false, even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. I am not trying to claim we know everything about our existence, because we don't, however, we certainly have a lot evidence for our origins and the universe around us. Through the video, you kept the assumption that god exists, however, you never provided a valid reasoning for it. We have no evidence for god, so there is no reason other than an emotional attachment to believe in one.
You said, "universe coming from seemingly nothing is entirely possible" yep, you are an atheist, and atheists are the most religious people I have ever met!
@@DanMason2025 yes, it is. Classical laws do not apply to quantum mechanics and relativity. We have observed partials literally appearing out of space, not matter, space. It's not a religion, it is the lack of religion. Because unlike the belief of a god, we have a tiny understanding of this phenomenon. God has no evidence. I also said "possible," which is not saying it is a definite fact. We cannot see past time, so we can't see where or how the universe formed then, we have to study the universe as it is now to know.
_"Why does something exist instead of nothing?"_ We don't even know whether philosophical nothing is attainable or not, let alone whether there could be philosophical nothing. _"How is it possible for something to arise from nothing"_ Any honest apologist should know that atheists generally don't think that something can arise from nothing. _""The vast intricacy of our world could not have emerged spontaneously"_ Exactly what level of intricacy would be possible and what mechanism puts a limit at that level? That's an unfounded argument from incredulity. We don't know enough about the fundamental nature of the universe to make such claims. If a good enough universe can't exist, how could a perfect being exist?
The Christian worldview provides a coherent answer: the existence of the universe is grounded in the existence of an eternal, necessary being-God. This being is the ultimate cause and source of all that exists. According to classical theism, God is a necessary being, meaning that His non-existence is impossible. This contrasts with contingent beings, like humans and the universe, which could conceivably not exist.
The question, "How is it possible for something to arise from nothing?" underscores a significant challenge for atheistic naturalism. Even if many atheists do not claim that something can come from nothing, the atheistic worldview struggles to provide a satisfactory account of the universe's origin. The concept of "nothing" in a philosophical sense means the absence of anything, including matter, energy, space, and time. The spontaneous emergence of the universe from such a state seems implausible without an external cause. Christianity, on the other hand, posits that God, an eternal and omnipotent being, created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), which aligns with the notion that an uncaused, necessary being is responsible for the existence of the contingent universe.
The assertion that "the vast intricacy of our world could not have emerged spontaneously" is not merely an argument from incredulity. It is based on observations of the complexity and fine-tuning evident in the universe. The precise constants and conditions necessary for life to exist suggest that the universe is not a product of random processes. For example, the fine-tuning of the physical constants, the complexity of biological systems, and the information content in DNA point to an intelligent designer. Intelligent Design argues that such complexity is best explained by the action of an intelligent cause, rather than undirected natural processes.
The question, "If a good enough universe can't exist, how could a perfect being exist?" misunderstands the nature of the argument. The existence of a perfect being-God-is not contingent upon the universe being perfect or "good enough." Instead, the existence of a perfect being provides a foundation for the existence and order of the universe. God's perfection includes attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and moral goodness. These attributes are not dependent on the nature of the universe but are inherent to the divine nature. The existence of the universe, with all its intricacies and complexities, can be seen as a reflection of God's creative power and intelligence.
What would it mean for “nothing” to “exist”? Isn’t that inherently contradictory? Isn’t the “existing” the process of being real or being something and isn’t “nothing” the opposite of something? So how can the opposite of something be something? You need to make a case for the claim that “nothing” even can exist before you can reasonably ask why it doesn’t… and I don’t have reason to accept that claim so for now the question is just nonsense to me.
@@DanMason2025 if you’re using the definition scientists use when they talk about big bang then you’re just saying “something we have no way of knowing about” So would a correct rephrasing of your question be: “why is there something instead of something have no way of knowing about”? Because if not then you aren’t using the same definition of nothing as scientists and you need to define your usage as it’s apparently also no “a lack of anything” as it is collegially used.
It would seem, from looking through the comments, that not only can atheists answer these questions, but they can give better, fuller answers than the Christian presenter can. This is ignoring that each and every question is nonsensical from the onset, based on assigning ideas and stances to atheists that they do not actually accept, or based completely on empty assertion. The questions regarding 'nothing' are the strawmen, the questions regarding intricacy is based on empty assertions about reality. It would seem that Christians have so little to actually say against atheism that they need to fabricate stances and assign them to it in order to have something to attack... it also seems that they have so little evidence for their beliefs that they need to fabricate nonsense about the universe in order to assign God as a cause. Meanwhile they have 0 facts or data supporting their claims. No mechanism or limit to "intricacy", no actual examples of "fine-tuning", nothing limiting complexity to a mind, etc.. all they have is empty, thoughtless assertions they cannot back up.
One. We are not certain why there is something rather than nothing, however, we do know the classical laws do not always apply to quantum mechanics and relativity, so we know that the possibility of the universe coming from seemingly nothing is entirely possible. We cannot see past time, so we connot be certain of the universes true origins. Two, the possiblity of a phenomenon occuring is not based on its complexity, but rather if it follows the laws of the universe. Also, you are overly dramatic when you talk about the complexity of life. Yes, life is very complex, but it wouldn't be considered overly complex. You are purposely trying to make the origins of life and evolution seem impossible even though that is far from the truth. Lastly, every time you asked a question, and tried to explain it, you ultimately concluded it with an assumption. You tried to relate entropy to a spiritual ream because you don't understand how entropy can be turned into order. You also assume that our lives are some how special and cannot possibly be described through the laws of physics and you simply disregard evolution after assuming a god exists. You said (in a nutshell) that if God uses evolution as a way to create life, then that God would be cruel and that just isn't true, so evolution must be false, even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. I am not trying to claim we know everything about our existence, because we don't, however, we certainly have a lot evidence for our origins and the universe around us. Through the video, you kept the assumption that god exists, however, you never provided a valid reasoning for it. We have no evidence for god, so there is no reason other than an emotional attachment to believe in one.
You said, "universe coming from seemingly nothing is entirely possible" yep, you are an atheist, and atheists are the most religious people I have ever met!
@@DanMason2025 yes, it is. Classical laws do not apply to quantum mechanics and relativity. We have observed partials literally appearing out of space, not matter, space. It's not a religion, it is the lack of religion. Because unlike the belief of a god, we have a tiny understanding of this phenomenon. God has no evidence. I also said "possible," which is not saying it is a definite fact. We cannot see past time, so we can't see where or how the universe formed then, we have to study the universe as it is now to know.
_"Why does something exist instead of nothing?"_
We don't even know whether philosophical nothing is attainable or not, let alone whether there could be philosophical nothing.
_"How is it possible for something to arise from nothing"_
Any honest apologist should know that atheists generally don't think that something can arise from nothing.
_""The vast intricacy of our world could not have emerged spontaneously"_
Exactly what level of intricacy would be possible and what mechanism puts a limit at that level?
That's an unfounded argument from incredulity.
We don't know enough about the fundamental nature of the universe to make such claims.
If a good enough universe can't exist, how could a perfect being exist?
As usual, an atheists bring Nothing to the Table of Knowledge!
The Christian worldview provides a coherent answer: the existence of the universe is grounded in the existence of an eternal, necessary being-God. This being is the ultimate cause and source of all that exists. According to classical theism, God is a necessary being, meaning that His non-existence is impossible. This contrasts with contingent beings, like humans and the universe, which could conceivably not exist.
The question, "How is it possible for something to arise from nothing?" underscores a significant challenge for atheistic naturalism. Even if many atheists do not claim that something can come from nothing, the atheistic worldview struggles to provide a satisfactory account of the universe's origin. The concept of "nothing" in a philosophical sense means the absence of anything, including matter, energy, space, and time. The spontaneous emergence of the universe from such a state seems implausible without an external cause. Christianity, on the other hand, posits that God, an eternal and omnipotent being, created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), which aligns with the notion that an uncaused, necessary being is responsible for the existence of the contingent universe.
The assertion that "the vast intricacy of our world could not have emerged spontaneously" is not merely an argument from incredulity. It is based on observations of the complexity and fine-tuning evident in the universe. The precise constants and conditions necessary for life to exist suggest that the universe is not a product of random processes. For example, the fine-tuning of the physical constants, the complexity of biological systems, and the information content in DNA point to an intelligent designer. Intelligent Design argues that such complexity is best explained by the action of an intelligent cause, rather than undirected natural processes.
The question, "If a good enough universe can't exist, how could a perfect being exist?" misunderstands the nature of the argument. The existence of a perfect being-God-is not contingent upon the universe being perfect or "good enough." Instead, the existence of a perfect being provides a foundation for the existence and order of the universe. God's perfection includes attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and moral goodness. These attributes are not dependent on the nature of the universe but are inherent to the divine nature. The existence of the universe, with all its intricacies and complexities, can be seen as a reflection of God's creative power and intelligence.
What would it mean for “nothing” to “exist”?
Isn’t that inherently contradictory?
Isn’t the “existing” the process of being real or being something and isn’t “nothing” the opposite of something?
So how can the opposite of something be something?
You need to make a case for the claim that “nothing” even can exist before you can reasonably ask why it doesn’t… and I don’t have reason to accept that claim so for now the question is just nonsense to me.
No, I dont. You need to read more. Try the Big Bang!
@@DanMason2025 if you’re using the definition scientists use when they talk about big bang then you’re just saying “something we have no way of knowing about”
So would a correct rephrasing of your question be: “why is there something instead of something have no way of knowing about”? Because if not then you aren’t using the same definition of nothing as scientists and you need to define your usage as it’s apparently also no “a lack of anything” as it is collegially used.
@@derpionderpson1424 No, define nothing!
@@DanMason2025
What??!?
How am I going to be the one defining the word you use????
😂
It would seem, from looking through the comments, that not only can atheists answer these questions, but they can give better, fuller answers than the Christian presenter can. This is ignoring that each and every question is nonsensical from the onset, based on assigning ideas and stances to atheists that they do not actually accept, or based completely on empty assertion.
The questions regarding 'nothing' are the strawmen, the questions regarding intricacy is based on empty assertions about reality.
It would seem that Christians have so little to actually say against atheism that they need to fabricate stances and assign them to it in order to have something to attack... it also seems that they have so little evidence for their beliefs that they need to fabricate nonsense about the universe in order to assign God as a cause. Meanwhile they have 0 facts or data supporting their claims. No mechanism or limit to "intricacy", no actual examples of "fine-tuning", nothing limiting complexity to a mind, etc.. all they have is empty, thoughtless assertions they cannot back up.
Atheists are good at myth-making, that is all.
@@DanMason2025 Lol, yeah, the group that doesn't base everything on "god did it" is the one good at myth making...
this sh*t is 100% AI-generated
Thanks for watching! I'm glad you enjoyed the content.