This one is a bit long but... Damn I'm good.

Someone presented this argument as proof of the existence of God.

(1) If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case -always, for nothing simply remains nothing - forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” -applied to the same object, at the same time - are mutually exclusive terms.

(2) Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always?

(3) In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight.

Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature.

Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes — what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit?

(4) The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist.

Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself.

(5) In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material — which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) — an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being.


I pwned this stupid premise with the following.

Your entire logical chain hinges on the assumption that something that exists eternally must be non material in nature. Therefore if a case can be made showing either that a material thing can exist eternally or that a non natural non material thing can not be shown to exist or a non material thing which is also natural can be shown to exist then your argument fails.

I will do all three.

The first. Can a material thing exist eternally.?

As any discussion of the origin if any of the universe are speculative in nature the words of any expert can not be held as authoritative in the absence of an evidence supported theory, mathematical proof, or at the very least clear consensus. None of these exist to support your premise.

While I am not criticizing the work of Dr. Robert Jastrow. I find no supporting references that indicate he is one of the most reputable scientists in the world.

There may be a case for matter being unable to have existed eternally but the same can not be applied to energy. It is plausible that energy has existed eternally and this has not been refuted.

The first law of thermodynamics states that

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

While there is no proof that this would apply in the conditions of a singularity there is also no evidence that it would not. There is only evidence that it might not due to the instability of thermodynamics in microscopic systems.

If the first law is correct and it has not been proven incorrect even in the proposed circumstances. Then energy must have always existed and since energy and matter can transition from one to the other matter can have come from energy.

Contrary to what has been stated by some the second law does not refute the possibility of an eternally existing universe. The laws of thermodynamics do not reference gravity, therefore even in a state of maximum entropy gravity would remain as a source of work which could as an attractor entity reverse or reset entropy. I have previously posted as an example that if the universe had reached "heat death" the energy in an entropic state would be collected by black holes when these black holes had collected all available energy there would be no barrier to them attracting and absorbing other black holes until all had been consolidated in to a universal singularity which contains all of the universes energy at a zero entropy state. When such a singularity reaches its ultimate density threshold it would release this energy back in to the universe to begin accumulating entropy again.

The second. Has a non natural non material thing been shown to exist?

This is much shorter. No non natural non material thing has been demonstrated to exist.

The last: Is there a natural non material thing which has existed eternally and has the ability to create energy and or matter?

There is a natural non material thing that has existed eternally. Space. Space is non material but it is not nothing. It has been shown to have shape and structure and to conform to certain rules. This shows that it is not "nothing" it is something and it is non material.

If space is defined as something and there is an absence of anything material quantum vacuum friction could result. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that quantum vacuum friction can spontaneously create particles. Therefore Space itself is a natural non material thing which has existed eternally and has the potential to create matter or energy.

Therefore your argument fails all three proofs of its accuracy.