Nothing Theory Vs Atheist Theory

Maybe there’s a more intelligent explanation beyond religion and atheist theory. Theists believe that life was created by a supernatural God, while atheists believe life evolved from a combination of inorganic elements mixing together. The problem is, both theories ignore the laws of nature and these models are not observed in nature. No one has combined nonliving materials or breathed air into dirt to bring life into existence. We need theories that follow natural law, and references events observable in nature. To develop a theory that complements nature, we study nature and then extrapolate. The answer to how life comes into existence is neither a secret nor a mystery, life is everywhere on this planet, and we observe life every day.

Just repeating the mantra, “There is nothing, we come from nothing, we are nothing, we will be nothing, and when we die there is nothing, just isn’t good enough. This is a tedious hypothesis that closes your mind and inspires no one. The Nothing Theory at best is boring, has no vision, and lacks imagination.

Atheists react to theist theories without offering any inspiring ideas of their own. Atheists need a better argument. We need original ideas and ingenious theories. There are other innovative, intelligent choices that make more sense.

It makes no sense for us to be here, and evolve for no reason. If there were no purpose to our existence, then we could stay the same and die the same, generation after generation. But we are evolving into something; we just don’t know what it is. We are the caterpillar who does not know it will become a butterfly.

If you subscribe to the Nothing Theory, then you most likely, and probably presume that we are the most knowledgeable beings in the universe and there is nothing or no one more intelligent than us. This way of thinking takes us back to the “We are the center of the universe” mentality and we know what happened to that

People are not going to be persuaded by that argument, instead, you can say, “We were created to evolve” and establish a new theory of creation. The question is not whether we were created, but how. To win this debate you need to adopt the parent entity model to redefine creation and creator.

IV

Creator/creator

Some people get anxious when they hear the word creator. They often confuse "creator" with "Creator". They are two separate words with two different meanings: creator (small c) is something or someone that brings something into being, whereas Creator (large C) means the Creator, God.1

Today we add “parent entity” to the definition of creator and Creator. Now they both mean “parent entity”.

When someone says, “We were created,” you can reply, “Yes we were, we were created to evolve. Our creator is inconceivable: There are no words written or any words spoken that describe our creator, as our creator is ineffable and unknowable, even though we have no concept of our creator, we do know that our creation is a natural process."

Speak in common terms and use the word creator instead of parent entity. You win people over when you give them an alternative that is palatable to their