# Given that 'stuff' is tangible/real (i.e., not imaginary), what are the more common Atheistic views as to how 'stuff' came into existence?



## RegularJoe (Jul 24, 2022)

Given that 'stuff' is tangible/real (i.e., not imaginary), what are the more common Atheistic views as to how 'stuff' came into existence?


----------



## earlthegoat2 (Jul 24, 2022)

Evolutionary biology is one view


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 24, 2022)

earlthegoat2 said:


> Evolutionary biology is one view


Ok. Thx.     And, then : ), .... 
what about the inanimate (i.e., e.g., non-biologically related) 'stuff?'


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jul 24, 2022)

Science.
...Astro- physics, chemistry, etc.

 Not that I'm trying to be an atheist, I try hard not to be.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 24, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Given that 'stuff' is tangible/real (i.e., not imaginary), what are the more common Atheistic views as to how 'stuff' came into existence?



One well accepted scientific view is all the "stuff" - being energy and all manner of materials for creating atoms, molecules and more advanced "stuff" - was compressed into a tiny area which expanded into the universe as we know it, which is of course still expanding. Now what happened before the expansion? How did everything get compressed, if indeed it was compressed?  Perhaps the properties of the universe are such that it is eternal and has always existed!  We have no other universe to compare it to, so nobody knows. Scientists learn more & more about the universe all the time. But throughout the history of mankind "god did it" never turns out to be the right answer.  Before humans figured out how to make fire ourselves, we thought it was of supernatural origin. We used to think earthquakes were supernatural before we figured out the Earth's geology. We used to think evil spirits made people sick or be born with birth defects, until we figured out biology. 

My point is why should all - or any of - the other "mysteries" we currently don't understand turn out to be solved by "god did it?"


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> One well accepted scientific view is all the "stuff" - being energy and all manner of materials for creating atoms, molecules and more advanced "stuff" - was compressed into a tiny area which expanded into the universe as we know it, which is of course still expanding. Now what happened before the expansion? How did everything get compressed, if indeed it was compressed?  Perhaps the properties of the universe are such that it is eternal and has always existed!  We have no other universe to compare it to, so nobody knows. Scientists learn more & more about the universe all the time. But throughout the history of mankind "god did it" never turns out to be the right answer.  Before humans figured out how to make fire ourselves, we thought it was of supernatural origin. We used to think earthquakes were supernatural before we figured out the Earth's geology. We used to think evil spirits made people sick or be born with birth defects, until we figured out biology.
> 
> My point is why should all - or any of - the other "mysteries" we currently don't understand turn out to be solved by "god did it?"




How do you know that man thought fire was of supernatural origin, before we knew how to make it?

Sincere question.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 24, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> How do you know that man thought fire was of supernatural origin, before we knew how to make it?
> 
> Sincere question.



Because it generally started from a lightning strike, and lightning strikes appear randomly out of thin air from the sky accompanied by a tremendously loud noise. Also fire was useful for scaring away animals, cooking food, keeping warm, etc. so it could be considered a gift from the supernatural powers that be. But it could be considered punishment if it hit you & killed you, or started a fire that burned your house down.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> ....Scientists learn more & more about the universe all the time. ....


Ok ... including ~ wasn't it science that _originally_ told us the the sun revolved around the earth?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 24, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Ok ... including ~ wasn't it science that _originally_ told us the the sun revolved around the earth?



I think The Bible (Old Testament) beat science to it. Joshua 10:10-15
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua 10&version=ESV

That said, yes scientists and all the best & brightest used to think this! Let me explain how science works: it's about making the most logical conclusions based on the best data available at the time. As more accurate data & testing is discovered/revealed scientific views change to reflect the new information. 

In summary, science is questions demanding answers, while religion is answers that can't be questioned. Holy books - like the Bible - once finalized & canonized can be interpreted & analyzed but no new information can be brought in. The divine "truths" and stories are a done deal. Science demands that new information be brought in because the goal of science is to debunk older ideas once they are proven inaccurate or false, in the never-ending search for the unbiased, unfiltered, and unadulterated truth wherever it may lead.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think The Bible (Old Testament) beat science to it. Joshua 10:10-15
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua 10&version=ESV
> 
> That said, yes scientists and all the best & brightest used to think this! Let me explain how science works: it's about making the most logical conclusions based on the best data available at the time. As more accurate data & testing is discovered/revealed scientific views change to reflect the new information.
> ...





> As more accurate data & testing is discovered/revealed scientific views change to reflect the new information.


Its interesting how often that ^ gets used against science by (some) believers.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 25, 2022)

Gentlemen (& ladies) ~ I am looking for merely a little _objective_ information _specifically_ on the Original Post .... 
"_Given that 'stuff' is tangible/real (i.e., not imaginary), 
what are the more common Atheistic views as to how 'stuff' came into existence_?"


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2022)

Unlike early man, there is absolutely no repercussion for me saying, "I don't know." 
All the theories make more sense than a supernatural being, that has always been around, suddenly poofed them into existence. Well, to me anyway.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 25, 2022)

660griz said:


> Unlike early man, there is absolutely no repercussion for me saying, "I don't know."
> All the theories make more sense than a supernatural being, that has always been around, suddenly poofed them into existence. Well, to me anyway.


Yep. "I dont know" covers it for me too.
And I'm not going to pick one just because I WANT it to be true.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 25, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> ..."I dont know" covers it for me too....


Same here ... the very reason for the Original Post.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting how often that ^ gets used against science by (some) believers.



To which science does this  because some believers just don't get the point/the motivation of science. But allow me to throw this out as food for thought:

Christianity and Judaism- and maybe other religions too but I can't say for sure - actually "adjust fire" and moves goalposts over a long enough time frame. What in the holy books was considered literal hundreds of years ago is now allegory or metaphor in light of contradictory scientific evidence. Morals, practices and behaviors in general that were practiced by typical Christians/Jews in the past are now frowned upon or adapted to modern living. The Bible is becoming IMHO a "living document" like the Constitution that can be modified - through interpretation - to stay relevant in a changing society. Granted changes in religion in many cases are subject to formal "peer review" and examination by the experts similar to what happens when "outside the box" ideas are presented in science. 

Bottom line I would venture to say that in 100 years Christianity will be much different than Christianity in 2022, and many scientific ideas will be supplanted, expanded or dropped completely in 100 years too.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

660griz said:


> Unlike early man, there is absolutely no repercussion for me saying, "I don't know."
> All the theories make more sense than a supernatural being, that has always been around, suddenly poofed them into existence. Well, to me anyway.



No doubt there were people many thousands of years ago who were genuinely interested in finding the reasons behind what they experienced. Without such people humans would have become extinct long ago, because our natural predators weren't getting any slower or stupider!  Environmental dangers weren't going away either. 

Sidenote about figuring out how to make fire on demand: this ability came about even before homo sapiens appeared according to many theories. Once we could cook our food our bodies didn't have to expend X amount of energy breaking down the food into usable energy - so that's more energy available in our bodies to grow a bigger, better brain. 

Fire and the Brain: How Cooking Shaped Humans | AMNH


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> No doubt there were people many thousands of years ago who were genuinely interested in finding the reasons behind what they experienced.


I thought this OP was basically about how the earth came to be. Not what caused rain or lightning. Curiosity is great but, at some point, ya gotta say, I dunno. For all the years we have tried to figure out the beginning of time, we are still stuck on what a catholic priest said many years ago.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> To which science does this  because some believers just don't get the point/the motivation of science. But allow me to throw this out as food for thought:
> 
> Christianity and Judaism- and maybe other religions too but I can't say for sure - actually "adjust fire" and moves goalposts over a long enough time frame. What in the holy books was considered literal hundreds of years ago is now allegory or metaphor in light of contradictory scientific evidence. Morals, practices and behaviors in general that were practiced by typical Christians/Jews in the past are now frowned upon or adapted to modern living. The Bible is becoming IMHO a "living document" like the Constitution that can be modified - through interpretation - to stay relevant in a changing society. Granted changes in religion in many cases are subject to formal "peer review" and examination by the experts similar to what happens when "outside the box" ideas are presented in science.
> 
> Bottom line I would venture to say that in 100 years Christianity will be much different than Christianity in 2022, and many scientific ideas will be supplanted, expanded or dropped completely in 100 years too.




Max Planck said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."  

I think so it goes with religion, as well.  The old guard sees the advancement as an attack on the faith; a weakening or watering down.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 25, 2022)

Original Post?


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 25, 2022)

660griz said:


> I thought this OP was basically about how the earth came to be.


Yeah Griz ... moreover, what are the more commonly held Atheistic (not Agnostic) views on how stuff came into existence universe - wide.


----------



## RamblinWreck88 (Jul 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Yeah Griz ... moreover, what are the more commonly held Atheistic (not Agnostic) views on how stuff came into existence universe - wide.


It's like griz said: At some point, "I don't know" is the only answer. Sure, we can look at the evolution of species; we can look back to the first one-celled organisms; we can look at the combination of chemicals that resulted in the first biological building blocks, and we can look even further back to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe as we know it. But beyond that, we simply do not know, and we mostly accept that the universe does not owe us an explanation.

Now, if you want to understand more about the Big Bang, cosmology in general, evolution, etc., I am sure that there are several of us who would provide excellent recommendations to resources that will explain these things far better than we ever could.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 25, 2022)

Not all atheists are cut from the same fabric regards the base for their  answer to the OP, but I suspect that the answer from the science community today is, " We don't know." The Big Bang Theory has been kicked to the curb by science, so much so that it will not appear in school books as in the right direction theory as it has in the past. Science has moved away from it. The goal post of a scientific theory possibly explaining origin and  beginning is not visible anymore. Or if it is, I'm on the late train.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 25, 2022)

Based on the above number of "don't knows,"
then I will conclude a commonly held view_ is_ that (at least some " : ) Atheists are fine with the view that it is okay to just not know.

_Could you help me with this, then..._ 

(while recognizing that I _am_ taking 1 step beyond the Original Post ... tho I am basing my below further inquiry on what I believe I am seeing as the predominant flow of the replies - apologies & I stand corrected if I am getting this wrong)...

does it follow that that type of Atheist is _actually_ an Agnostic, in that he/she claims _not knowing the source of how stuff came into existence_? - Thx.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

660griz said:


> I thought this OP was basically about how the earth came to be. Not what caused rain or lightning. Curiosity is great but, at some point, ya gotta say, I dunno. For all the years we have tried to figure out the beginning of time, we are still stuck on what a catholic priest said many years ago.



Indeed, when the universe AKA "stuff" came into being - by whatever means - nobody was around to write it down!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Based on the above number of "don't knows,"
> then I will conclude a commonly held view_ is_ that (at least some " : ) Atheists are fine with the view that it is okay to just not know.
> 
> _Could you help me with this, then..._
> ...



IMHO not knowing how stuff came into existence just means the atheist or agnostic doesn't have any hard evidence so far of how it came into existence but are open to any possibilities. The Bible doesn't have an explanation - and if it did - I personally would first need evidence that the Bible has accurate. Since I consider the Bible fiction - until proven otherwise - I'm stuck with "I don't know" as an answer. I can scratch God off the list of explanations, but that doesn't get me any closer to the truth.


----------



## RamblinWreck88 (Jul 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> does it follow that that type of Atheist is _actually_ an Agnostic, in that he/she claims _not knowing the source of how stuff came into existence_? - Thx.


I think there are a lot of people who identify as an agnostic due to the exact logic you have expressed. However, it is my personal belief that one can both accept that they do not know, and simultaneously identify as an atheist. For me, the following quote from Isaac Asimov explains it very well:

_“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." - Isaac Asimov_


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 25, 2022)

If one does not know, 
and acknowledege-ly believes without hard evidence anyway, 
is that not some version of having some version of a 'faith?'


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

Honestly I don't think - I could be wrong and I hope I am - that we will ever find out what happened before the expansion of the universe within my lifetime. 
However I do think that there* is *a pretty good chance that within my lifetime we will find the right combinations of circumstances to bridge the gap between non-living chemicals and actual by-golly "life".   And not just a virus or something that is semi-alive depending on what view that you take, but actual cellular life. We know how to make the building blocks, we just need protein activity. 

https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...at-may-be-responsible-for-the-origins-of-life

I also think that there* is* a possibility that within my lifetime we will have by-golly proof of life in other parts of the universe. Obviously life exists because we are here talking about it, and our little corner of the universe is nothing special, so I have ZERO doubt life exists elsewhere. We have ways to analyze chemical signatures on likely candidate planets & moons for life, so as that technology gets even better it ups the odds of finding proof. 

Assuming it's intelligent life, why haven't they contacted us? Probably because they took a completely different evolutionary path than we did, and their technology will never interact with ours. Maybe their civilizations died out long before human existence, or even before Earth had life - who knows?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> If one does not know,
> and acknowledege-ly believes without hard evidence anyway,
> is that not some version of having some version of a 'faith?'



Sort of I guess. Not knowing, but imagining what might be_ could be_ considered a form of faith. I will concede that.
But if some hard evidence came along to prove that what you think might be_ could never be _then IMHO it's time to pull the plug on your theory. I don't know of one child who gave up believing in the Tooth Fairy, and then went back to believing in the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2022)

https://symbolsage.com/thunder-and-lightning-gods/


oldfella1962 said:


> Honestly I don't think - I could be wrong and I hope I am - that we will ever find out what happened before the expansion of the universe within my lifetime.
> However I do think that there* is *a pretty good chance that within my lifetime we will find the right combinations of circumstances to bridge the gap between non-living chemicals and actual by-golly "life".   And not just a virus or something that is semi-alive depending on what view that you take, but actual cellular life. We know how to make the building blocks, we just need protein activity.
> 
> https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...at-may-be-responsible-for-the-origins-of-life
> ...


Many Stars have burned out. Who knows what life may have gone before them or with them.


----------



## RamblinWreck88 (Jul 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> If one does not know,
> and acknowledege-ly believes without hard evidence anyway,
> is that not some version of having some version of a 'faith?'


Are you referring to someone who does not _know_ that God doesn't exist yet still believes he doesn't exist?

I would contend that _not believing_ is not a belief in the same way that _believing_ is... An absence of belief is not belief. Thus, I would say that _not believing_ cannot be associated with _faith_.

To clarify the position that I talked about: Logically, one would be an "agnostic" in the strictest use of the work if they lack a belief in God. On this criteria alone, there logically be would be no atheists. However, the nuance is that emotionally/practically, one could be an atheist: They have an absence of belief in God, but are not investing any energy into either rescinding or further validating that lack of belief.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> If one does not know,
> and acknowledege-ly believes without hard evidence anyway,
> is that not some version of having some version of a 'faith?'


Why would someone believe if they do not know? People of faith don't say, "We are not sure there is a God but, we believe there is."


----------



## 660griz (Jul 25, 2022)

> does it follow that that type of Atheist is _actually_ an Agnostic, in that he/she claims _not knowing the source of how stuff came into existence_? - Thx.



Ah, grasshopper, you are conflating some. You assume not knowing how stuff came into existence throws the option of a supernatural being in there. For me, an atheist, it does not.

How did this beer can get on my lawn? I don't really know but, I can rest assured it was not created in that very spot by unknown forces.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

660griz said:


> Ah, grasshopper, you are conflating some. You assume not knowing how stuff came into existence throws the option of a supernatural being in there. For me, an atheist, it does not.
> 
> How did this beer can get on my lawn? I don't really know but, I can rest assured it was not created in that very spot by unknown forces.



Good point! I'm not saying that unknown forces cannot be the explanation for something. But I am saying that unknown forces should be at or towards* the bottom* *of the list* rather than at the top of the list. And to take things a bit further, if the specific unknown forces used for the explanation originate from a book you consider fiction and thoroughly debunked (in your opinion) those specific unknown forces would be at *the very bottom* of a long & exhaustive list.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Good point! I'm not saying that unknown forces cannot be the explanation for something. But I am saying that unknown forces should be at or towards* the bottom* *of the list* rather than at the top of the list. And to take things a bit further, if the specific unknown forces used for the explanation originate from a book you consider fiction and thoroughly debunked (in your opinion) those specific unknown forces would be at *the very bottom* of a long & exhaustive list.


Taking unknown sources, giving them a name, and then concocting stories to go with them solves nothing except self gratification.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 25, 2022)

660griz said:


> I thought this OP was basically about how the earth came to be. Not what caused rain or lightning. Curiosity is great but, at some point, ya gotta say, I dunno. For all the years we have tried to figure out the beginning of time, we are still stuck on what a catholic priest said many years ago.


I’d prefer to hear “I dunno”, “I believe” or “I don’t believe” instead of hearing an I dunno answer that’s presented as a fact.


----------



## GT90 (Jul 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’d prefer to hear “I dunno”, “I believe” or “I don’t believe” instead of hearing an I dunno answer that’s presented as a fact.



How is "I dunno" not just an opinion or best guess based on what is or is not known?  How could "I dunno" be presented as fact?  What facts are there in "I dunno"?  Probably not understanding what you are trying to say.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 25, 2022)

GT90 said:


> How is "I dunno" not just an opinion or best guess based on what is or is not known?  How could "I dunno" be presented as fact?  What facts are there in "I dunno"?  Probably not understanding what you are trying to say.


For me, these are good:
Believe - I believe there’s a God. 
Don’t believe - I don’t believe there’s a God
I dunno - I dunno if there’s a God

This is what I’m saying is an I dunno presented as fact:

Beginning of time was / is. From any perspective that’s going to be an opinion based on what you believe or don’t believe and the factual answer hasn’t been determined, yet. But when you say “this” was the beginning of time, that’s a factual statement.


----------



## GT90 (Jul 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> For me, these are good:
> Believe - I believe there’s a God.
> Don’t believe - I don’t believe there’s a God
> I dunno - I dunno if there’s a God
> ...



Agreed.  Works from both sides of the religious/non-religious spectrum.  I am strongly in the "I dunno" category.  And my "I dunno" is fact.


----------



## Spotlite (Jul 25, 2022)

GT90 said:


> Agreed.  Works from both sides of the religious/non-religious spectrum.  I am strongly in the "I dunno" category.  And my "I dunno" is fact.


Lol I hear ya ?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 25, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> For me, these are good:
> Believe - I believe there’s a God.
> Don’t believe - I don’t believe there’s a God
> I dunno - I dunno if there’s a God
> ...



Fair enough, but saying "I don't know, but the best scientific theory so far seems to indicate..." would be a very reasonable statement for just about anything that has yet to be proven. 

Concerning God: I believe that there _could_ theoretically be a God, but no God has been proven to exist so far. I don't know where that would fall into your three categories.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 26, 2022)

RamblinWreck88 said:


> Are you referring to someone who does not _know_ that God doesn't exist yet still believes he doesn't exist?


  Certainly sounds like an important question, tho because I am not real, real sure if I fully comprehend your question ... will refrain : ) from replying at this point.



RamblinWreck88 said:


> To clarify the position that I talked about: Logically, one would be an "agnostic" in the strictest use of the work if they lack a belief in God. On this criteria alone, there logically be would be no atheists. However, the nuance is that emotionally/practically, one could be an atheist: They have an absence of belief in God, but are not investing any energy into either rescinding or further validating that lack of belief.


Thank you ... this helps me, a lot, to get it all better mentally organized.  Preciate it.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 26, 2022)

660griz said:


> Why would someone believe if they do not know? "


I, personally, did not invent the word 'faith,' Griz.
Faith definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith


----------



## RamblinWreck88 (Jul 26, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Certainly sounds like an important question, tho because I am not real, real sure if I fully comprehend your question ... will refrain : ) from replying at this point.


I was just trying to make sure I understood your question so that I could frame my response in that context, nothing more. I'm happy to illuminate what I can and glad to see someone who seems genuinely curious.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 26, 2022)

660griz said:


> For me, an atheist, it does not.


 Thx.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 26, 2022)

660griz said:


> Ah, grasshopper, you are conflating some. You assume not knowing how stuff came into existence throws the option of a supernatural being in there.


Uhmmm ... where above does the grasshopper state that assumption, Griz?


660griz said:


> How did this beer can get on my lawn? I don't really know but, I can rest assured it was not created in that very spot by unknown forces.


The Original Post does not question how the can got on your lawn ... it is merely inquiring as to what are the most common Atheistic views of how the can came to exist?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> I, personally, did not invent the word 'faith,' Griz.
> Faith definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith


Don't ask me. Ask the folks with faith if they don't know for sure there is a God. Faith is belief without evidence. Not knowing is different.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 26, 2022)

RegularJoe said:


> Uhmmm ... where above does the grasshopper state that assumption, Griz?


 Maybe it was the wording. Did you mean is the type an agnostic atheist? Yes, I believe that is possible but, it is not a question that can pertain to all atheist. 



> The Original Post does not question how the can got on your lawn ... it is merely inquiring as to what are the most common Atheistic views of how the can came to exist?


These answers are relatively easy to Google like the definition of faith. 
Atheist and agnostic are terms related to the belief in Gods. That is it. All other questions are individual decisions which may or may not have anything to do with there religious belief or lack of belief system. 

And please forgive my defensiveness. I have long heard the "...is a type of faith." "...is type of religion." so much that it gets tiresome. For a minute, I thought you were just trying another approach to get there.


----------



## RegularJoe (Jul 26, 2022)

Griz ~ My replies are in "CAPS" for easy type readin' .... not intended for 'emphasis.'



660griz said:


> Maybe it was the wording. Did you mean is the type an agnostic atheist? Yes, I believe that is possible but, it is not a question that can pertain to all atheist.
> 
> YEAH ... THX ... THAT IS KINDA / SOME`O THAT WHICH I'M TRYING TO LEARN ABOUT.
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 26, 2022)

https://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/if-there-no-god-where-did-everything-come

_
"Many theists who pose the cosmological argument do so from a place of misunderstanding physics. Most specifically, they will cite the First Law of Thermodynamics, stating that “matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (2).” Note that mass is a form of energy. From this, they postulate that something cannot come out of nothing in the natural world, which necessarily means that a supernatural explanation is required.
While the theistic argument claims that the First Law of Thermodynamics proves that there needs to be a source for all matter and energy in the universe, in fact, there are other ways that this could be true. For example, the universe, or multiple universes, could have existed forever with the same amount of matter and energy. Or the universe’s, or multiple universes’, positive and negative energy could add up to zero. We simply don’t yet know the complete workings and laws of the universe at this point in time, but that doesn’t mean that we can fill in the gaps of our knowledge with God. In fact, if God can create matter and energy, why couldn’t a natural process that we do not understand yet do the same as well?
Additionally, the very idea of invoking natural laws as a defense of the supernatural is inherently absurd. If a deity truly existed who could break all natural laws and exist outside of reality, there would be no need for him to conform to the laws of physics. Requiring science to support your opinion about some things, like thermodynamics, while ignoring it when it disagrees with your other beliefs, like evolution, is a flagrant misappropriation of scientific principles._"

Though this is an Atheist site (which is who your question is directed to), this article seems in line with contemporary secular scientific understanding.   

A good question to ask is "Why MUST there be a Prime Mover"?  I think you'll find that the answer is one of preference.  Those who believe in a Prime Mover do so because they prefer to, for many different reasons, but it comes down to a matter of taste.


----------

