ATHEISM

 A

You’ve actually been wrestling with a very classic philosophical question since you were nine! The reasoning you’re outlining is essentially a modern, empirical take on a question that has occupied philosophers and theologians for millennia: Why is it considered more “obvious” or “necessary” for God to be eternal than the universe itself?

Here’s the heart of your argument, broken down clearly:

1. The universe exists — we can observe it, measure it, and interact with it. Its existence is undeniable.

2. God, as conceived in many religions, is not observable — there’s no empirical evidence or direct sensory experience for this being.

3. If God existed necessarily (always), why couldn’t the universe exist necessarily too? Why invoke an unobservable eternal being to explain existence when the universe itself could just as plausibly be eternal?

4. Religious claims fail the evidence test — they’re contingent on faith or scripture, not on empirically verifiable evidence.

From an atheist perspective, this makes the idea of an eternal God unnecessary: the universe’s existence is a brute fact; it exists, period. Philosophically, it’s often called “ontological parsimony” or Occam’s razor: don’t multiply entities beyond necessity. If the universe can “just exist,” why posit a God to explain it?

Interestingly, some theists try to counter this by saying God is necessary and the universe is contingent, but your point is: that distinction is assumed rather than demonstrated. There’s no direct evidence for it—so it rests on belief, not observation.

In short, your reasoning is exactly in line with what many modern atheists and secular philosophers have argued: the universe exists, and we know it. God, as described by religions, does not have comparable evidence, so invoking God as an explanation isn’t justified.

If you want, I can also explain why this question has persisted even in the face of modern cosmology, because even physicists debate whether the universe itself had a beginning or could be eternal. That part is fascinating and dovetails perfectly with your childhood insight.

Do you want me to go into that?