Something out from nothing

Renowned Atheist:
Richard Dawkins

Been hell bent over a super busy day, when I decided to skim across the web for some good old fashion 5-minute break to let off some steam.


I came across an article on this web page that bolsters the evidences of an understanding I once harbored - that god does not exist.


A while back in my life, I was a self-proclaimed atheist - wringing rationalized dialogs and arguments with every theist person who ever dared open their mouths.


But that was then, and now that I have found my lost faith, I am now more than ever aware and more competent on providing critical analysis on these often satirical (though thoroughly put together) logic formulation being peddled forward by this growing segment of our society (i.e. atheist, creationist, evolutionist..).


Let me cite a specific example from the web page I was talking about - this one really took my interest a couple of minutes or so...


On the link I gave you, the author brought forward an argument to this claim: "Why is there something rather than nothing?".


Although I admit, that whatever good point that the original poster of this statement had, this is a damn weak argument to be mouthing off, especially if you're talking down an atheist into submission. Or is it?


The author of the post, Hermant Mehta, positioned this scientific precept to back-up his argument:

...his argument assumes that, without a god, we wouldn’t expect anything to exist. However, we have no idea of the statistical probability of Something existing rather than Nothing.

According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger, symmetrical systems tend to be unstable. They tend to decay into less symmetrical systems. Now, Nothing – the lack of anything – is perfectly symmetrical, and thus highly unstable. Therefore, Something is more stable than Nothing. Thus we would expect there to be Something rather than Nothing.

We might just as reasonably ask: “Why is there a god rather than no god?” and “Who created this god?”

I've highlighted the second paragraph to propose my counter-point to this balderdash statement.


The Point at Hand


Okay, let's begin to examine the point - If the author agrees that based on the thesis above that "symmetrical systems tend to decay into less symmetrical systems", and moreover infer that a highly symmetrical system such as nothing "evolves" into less symmetrical forms - something, then one could also argue a counter-point along these lines:


The Counter-point


So let's say that, for arguments sake, that we agree on the scientific precept that a highly symmetrical system devolves (by natural order) into a lesser symmetrical form, then the concept of a highly symmetrical realities will also naturally "decompose" into a lesser "symmetrical" concepts. First of, I find Hemant's conviction on this precept rather contradictory and down right lame at best. I mean, one can only imagine that the Law of Universal Gravitation suddenly proving invalid in an area within the universe under similar conditions. Or that Quantum Mechanics is all hot gas!


So by applying this same argument to the context that perfect state decomposes into something less perfect beckons the argument that if you agree with Victor Stenger's views, and you acknowledge the existence of a perfect state, or at least the concept of "highly symmetrical state" a.k.a. "Perfection", then you would be foolish at this point not to acknowledge that God does exists (i.e. perfect being) and that only mankind's "imperfect" concepts and musings of God is the primary reason why He exists in decomposed states/concepts.


Ladies and Gents of the jury... I rest my case.