Atheists don't believe in God or gods but they have no alternative theories that make sense...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes you are because nothing that didn't already exist in some form was created.

No, it violates no conservation principle. You are not following.You should look up what physicists say on the subject.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes you are because nothing that didn't already exist in some form was created.

No, it violates no conservation principle. You are not following.You should look up what physicists say on the subject.

CREATING energy violates the FLoT. Already existing particles that split into two virtual particles and then rejoin are NOT a new creation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

CREATING energy violates the FLoT

Not when created with equal parts negative energy, it does not. Because the net energy is still zero.

 

[edthecynic]

CREATING energy violates the FLoT

Not when created with equal parts negative energy, it does not. Because the net energy is still zero.

But nothing is CREATED, the positive and negative energy already existed as a particle before it split, so you can't "create" what already existed in a different form.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But nothing is CREATED

Wrong. An entire universe can be created. Again, you're not following.

Trying to make the cosmos out of nothing

 

[edthecynic]

But nothing is CREATED

Wrong. An entire universe can be created. Again, you're not following.

Trying to make the cosmos out of nothing

there is no such thing as nothing.
Why do you think your own link puts "nothing" in quotes???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

there is no such thing as nothing.

,
Thank you shaman. Your divine wisdom is much appreciated. But my use of the word only referred to the state of "no energy"in the context of our little discussion.

So, anyhoo: you can create an entire universe, and yet violate no priciples of conservation. Do you see, now?

 

[edthecynic]

there is no such thing as nothing.

,
Thank you shaman. Your divine wisdom is much appreciated. But my use of the word only referred to the state of "no energy"in the context of our little discussion.

So, anyhoo: you can create an entire universe, and yet violate no priciples of conservation. Do you see, now?

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, a PROVEN Law of science. All you have is unproven conjecture that creating a universe also creates energy. Energy preexisted the universe. Energy created the physical universe, the universe did not create energy.

From a source you have already cited:
There’s No Such Thing as Nothing, According to Quantum Physics

 

[Muhammed]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

 

[Karl Rand]

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

Hang on, have you created a grammatical error by mistake and generated a cosmic oxymoron?
To me there are two greater mysteries. 1: Why do we ask these quesions?
2: Why do we assume we are able to arrive at proof for any of the suggested scenarios ?

We really are a peculiar species with a terror of not knowing everything. So profouond a fear we invent all manner of theological drivel to comfort ourselves and allay our fear of mortality?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

...as to how the universe came to exist or how humans became aware of our own existence.

And I've tried to get answers from atheists, but none are forthcoming.

They do like to mock those of us who do believe in God or gods, as if somehow mockery can make up for lack of answers.

And I do anticipate that they will simply do that in this thread, mock and ridicule.

The “atheist” answer to your questions “How did the universe come into existence?” and “How did human beings become aware of their own existence?” would depend on the atheist.

Now, why would the answer vary depending on which atheist answered, you might be asking yourself. Well, that’s because the only thing ALL atheists have in common is that they don’t believe in God or gods. That’s it. Nothing more. There are millions of atheists and there isn’t a consensus as to why there is something rather than nothing or how human beings became self aware - whatever you mean by that .

My answers to those questions are: nobody knows, yet, and may never know.

Also, the second question if phrased oddly. I’m not sure I understand fully what you mean. I’m assuming you are talking about the question of consciousness but correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

People are saying all sorts of random things, but you're getting way ahead of me.

All I said is that the universe did not cause itself.

True or untrue?

That's all we're talking about right now.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed
You cannot create matter out of nothing

It has always been here

The scientists say otherwise. They say the universe was not always here. They talk about a Big Bang theory.

Are you disagreeing with the Big Bang theory?

That isn’t what the Big Bang Theory claims.

It only deals with the Universe AFTER the singularity and makes no claims to events occurring at the singularity or before it, if “before” the singularity is something that makes sense.

 

[james bond]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

So backward. The Steady State model has been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

Steady state model - Wikipedia

 

[Karl Rand]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

So backward. The Steady State model has been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

Steady state model - Wikipedia

Demonstrated for how long? Science, if it’s to be called science, is always open to new explanations and discoveries, unlike religious dogma.

 

[Taz]

Even if atheists have no answer, that doesn't default to a singular god that wants us to follow a book of fiction.

 

[james bond]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

So backward. The Steady State model has been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

Steady state model - Wikipedia

Demonstrated for how long? Science, if it’s to be called science, is always open to new explanations and discoveries, unlike religious dogma.

Forever.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

So backward. The Steady State model has been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

Steady state model - Wikipedia

That Wikipedia entry is accurate in the context of the Steady State Model, but the Big Bang Theory doesn’t predict a beginning of the Universe necessarily. Just the Universe we experience now.

The BBT only goes back to the moment of expansion, it doesn’t describe the singularity (if that’s what it actually was) or what was before the singularity (if it is even meaningful to say “before”) It could be - and I’m not saying there’s any real rigorous math or hard evidence one way or the other - that the Universe existed before the singularity. Whether we would recognize it as the Universe, who can say? We will probably never know.

Of course, that doesn’t answer the question “Where did the Universe come from?” It only pushes the answer back.

It is an assumption that the Universe doesn’t have some sort of property that causes it to necessarily come into existence. It is also an assumption that it did. Either way, to claim to understand why there is a Universe is arrogant at worst and an baseless assumption at best.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, a PROVEN Law of science.

And yet this same "proven science" shows an entire universe can ne created without violating any conservation principle. So you don't get to defer to science, sorry.

 

[edthecynic]

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, a PROVEN Law of science.

And yet this same "proven science" shows an entire universe can ne created without violating any conservation principle. So you don't get to defer to science, sorry.

Nothing you stated is PROVEN.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing you stated is PROVEN.

Neither is anything you stated. In fact, you declaring what I say impossible carries a much larger burden of proof. You have much more work to do than I do. So maybe this is not the tack you want to take.