Atheist objection backfires?

Yes, this objection really did come from an atheist who was intending to give his TOP arguments against God. I didn't make it up. But it's a great opportunity to point people toward yet another reason why we should believe in God.

[harenterberge]

Just a variation on: we don't know so it must be god

[fusel]

No one actually uses that argument that there was no time for God to exist. Rather its to point out that the question of "what was before the big bang" might be nonsensical as the Big bang created space and since time is relative to space, no space, no time.
However it is just one of the possibilities as we simply dont know the actual answer to the question.

[ContemporaryCompendium]

There was no time before the BB so there was no time for God to exist.

There was no time before the BB so there was no time in which the BB could've occurred.

🤷🏻‍♂️

[TheDiamond]

"We don't know therefore god"

[vincentbarnett]

The reason I stopped believing was because I got to a stage in brain development that allowed critical thinking. I discovered the only way to believe in God was to stop thinking and take everything on faith. The definition of faith is belief without proof. My critically thinking mind couldn't accept that.

[alvaroibanez]

I think the main issue with any interpretation of what happened before the Big Bang that has anything to do with time is that it lacks a concise definition of what time itself is.
What we perceive as time is not necessarily what time actually is and there are many conflicting ideas about it. Some even claim that time is a human perception and not something that exists in any way.

[SuperEdge]

This isn’t evidence…….it’s just a baseless assertion.

[Wildminecraftwolf]

The insistence that there had to be a "creator" is entirely unfounded. It's special pleading.

[Mortimenow]

Just inserting “god” where you want isn’t a sound argument.

[DMC-bwfl]

Terry Pratchett — 'In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.'

[jamesmartell]

That's not evidence. You'd make a terrible scientist/lawyer

[PatientPerspective]

"Must be" isnt a good argument of factual evidence.

[Darwinwasright]

Good old god of the gaps, never gets old.

[christophertaylor]

I mean, the entire argument assumes its conclusion, this is a logical fallacy.

[toddwasson]

There had to be an event A before event B in order to say that A caused B. If event B occurs at time = 0 then no event can occur before it. Therefore nothing caused B.

[richardhunter]

I think something that is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial is something that doesn't exist

[bogdanflorin]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Christopher Hitchens,

[WintersunExtras]

Something that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. Well done, Mike. You've once again shown why belief in your God is pointless and unjustifiable.

[Tzimiskes]

If the universe originated in time, then it cannot have been caused by any physical process that has a finite probability, because if it did, then the event would already have happened, an infinite time ago. —The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008) p. 69

[impartialthrone]

One of the theories is that the universe always existed in one manner or another.
But even if it really did just begin, I don't see how it makes sense to add in another baseless assumption of a god to make it begin and make an exception for the god being able to exist in a way we don't know anything to be able to exist. It's less assumptions to just say the Universe began and we don't know how or why yet.