How do atheists respond to "necessary independent" argument?

Stephen Hawking said:

"Since we know the universe itself was once very small — perhaps smaller than a proton — this means something quite remarkable. It means the universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature. From that moment on, vast amounts of energy were released as space itself expanded — a place to store all the negative energy needed to balance the books. But of course the critical question is raised again: did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, do we need a God to set it up so that the Big Bang could bang? I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."

P2. Dependent things are things which fail to exist at certain times or places

How would you demonstrate the truth of this premise? It seems at least possible to me that something could be dependent without ever having failed to exist. Isn't it possible that God could have been sustaining something in existence from all eternity, in which case it never failed to exist?

How would you demonstrate the truth of this premise?

It is definitional premise, it is how dependent things are defined. Imagine this, ice cream exists at one place, but doesnt exist at another place. So it fails to exist at some place. Because it both exists at one place and fails to exist at other, it is dependant on condition which determined it to exist at one place but not in another. Independent thing, on the other hand, exists at all places at all times, thus it can never fail to exist, and thus it is independent of any condition, and it is condition which enables and disables dependent things.

Isn't it possible that God could have been sustaining something in existence from all eternity

Maybe for eternity, but not at all places. And thing is still dependent, because if God chose it to not exist, it would fail to even exist in one place. So it still fails to exist when condition isnt met. In other words, it doesnt exist at all times, only when condition is met.

could simply have popped into existence

By that logic, God too could have just popped into existence as infinitely small and make himself infinitely big. If there are laws which make things pop in existence, it raises two problems, who made those laws, did they pop in existence too? And what is the difference between those laws and God? God is defined as ultimate ruler and creator of everything, and such law would satisfy the definition by being creator and by link ruler.

It is definitional premise, it is how dependent things are defined.

Do you think that's what everybody means when they use the word, "dependent"?

Do you think that's what everybody means when they use the word, "dependent"?

Irrelevant. You can throw out the word dependent and just use the way it was defined, and argument wouldnt change. So counter definition argument doesnt work.

1. things either exist always at all places, or they dont
2. things which fail to exist at some place or some time require condition to create difference
3. condition itself cannot be a thing which fails to exist at some place or some time
4. Condition must always exist and everywhere

What people who try to change definitions in definition argument dont get is that meaning of definition remains true regardless. Definition argument is true by its meaning of definition, irrelevant of which word you give the meaning to. You can define 3 as one and one, so 1 plus 1 = 3. It wont change meaning, and it wont disprove math.

1. things either exist always at all places, or they dont

Why couldn't something exist at all times, but not at all places? Or why couldn't something exist in all places, but not at all times?

"The problem with atheism" isn't a single issue, but rather a category of criticisms, ranging from philosophical arguments against atheism as a foundation for morality and meaning, to critiques of militant or dogmatic atheist movements that mirror religious fundamentalism, and even concerns that the label "atheism" can impose a narrow, God-focused framework that hinders more comprehensive secular philosophies. Some arguments suggest a reliance on scientific naturalism can undermine the very basis of human reason, while others highlight the seeming improbability of a "fine-tuned" universe arising by chance

Why couldn't something exist at all times, but not at all places? Or why couldn't something exist in all places, but not at all times?

Failing to exist at one place makes things dependent on condition. Likewise, failing to exist at some time makes things dependent on condition.

A thing can either exist always and everywhere, or not. If it doesnt, then it either doesnt exist at all places, or not at all times.

There is a reason why true nihilist is always atheist. Atheism is a position which by itself has no any values. Lack of value isnt a value. And to build on atheism is impossible. Person who is atheist can only build his morality on something other than atheism, but what that something is?

Subjective morality is logically impossible. If all moral opinions or actions are equal(equally unproved), then no logical choice can be made to prefer one over another, thus the choice of action can only be random.

If some moral opinion or action is better proved than others, then subjective morality doesnt exist.

This problem makes subjective morality logically impossible to work with. But atheists dont believe in anything which can provide grounds for objective morality, and nihilists dont even believe in any morality.

Hmmm, remember that 117 billion humans have lived on Earth.

Pop and bang are noises relative to an auditory receptor.

Prior to such devices, would have been a BIG SILENCE..

What worries me, is how far away did GOD have to stand when he lit the blue touch paper.

Analogically speaking though, I can run with the idea that GOD lit the blue touch paper...Sacrificing itself in the ensuing BIG SILENCE.

What can I do when God is silent?

Accept God's authority.

He does not owe us an explanation for His actions or His silence. He is not obligated to answer our prayers or reveal His plans to us. He is God and we are not. We need to trust that He knows what He is doing and that He has our best interests at heart.

As GOD was and as GOD will become.

In the meantime let's hope that we know what we are doing.

For presently, responsibility for the GOD principle lies in our hands.

Though there maybe others.

Faith and hope are not mutually exclusive, but 

faith is often considered the more powerful concept, encompassing a deeper and more active trust in something unseen, while hope is a future-oriented expectation that is often built upon faith. In many traditions, faith is the substance and foundation, a present-tense reality and a trusting relationship, whereas hope is the future-oriented desire or confident expectation that springs from that established faith. 

Even more fluff.

Which at the end of the proverbial day, is all transferrable electrochemical data.

Now I would suggest that therein perhaps manifests a GOD principle in terms of universal material evolution.

And so as such, the gobbledygook of the BIble and religion, was an inevitable and necessary part of intellectual development and the furtherment of material development.

Faith hope or wishful thinking if you like...But as I see it, just a simple hypothesis based upon known events rather than upon fanciful notions.

Though to a certain degree, knowledge is also an internally generated assumption...But it's the best we have.

The Bible has profoundly shaped human history, 

influencing Western civilization and beyond through its impact on art, literature, law, and culture. Its sacred texts have inspired religious and social movements, such as the Protestant Reformation and the Civil Rights Movement, by providing ethical and philosophical foundations. The printing press and widespread accessibility further amplified its influence, embedding biblical themes and phrases into global language and consciousness. 

Undoubtedly.

Which nonetheless, doesn't validate the basis of the hypothesis.

Just means that it has been transferred into common usage.

A bit like sandwiches.

Though the basis of the sandwich, is self explanatory.

It’s very innovative to slip God’s message between two slices of bread. But it stops at the last supper.

No doubt Jesus's face has miraculously appeared on a slice of ham.

No possible. Jesus was a Jew and had to avoid pork.

I wasn't suggesting that he needed to eat the sandwich.

I wouldn't expect him to eat the Turin shroud.

Just think, the Jews have been missing out on a good pork sausage for millennia.

Proves Jews made sacrifices so the rest of the world could enjoy.

How does an atheist disprove necessity for independent thing which creates dependent things?

The burden isn’t on atheists to disprove it, it’s on those asserting it to demonstrate that this is true. Anyone can make anything up and define it as “necessary”, that doesn’t give it rational support.

By that logic, God too could have just popped into existence as infinitely small and make himself infinitely big.

Except that we know the universe is here, so God becomes an unnecessary assumption.

Atheism is a position which by itself has no any values.

It’s not supposed to have any values. Atheism is a single position on a single proposition; “a god exists”. Theism accepts this proposition, atheism does not. Everything else is something else.

If all moral opinions or actions are equal, then no logical choice can be made to prefer one over another, thus the choice of action can only be random.

Logic can only be applied to morality once a moral standard is accepted. Once a standard is accepted, the morality of any action follows from it, that’s what logic does - form a conclusion from the premises (the standard). The standard, will always be subjectively chosen, including if your standard is God. That’s why morality will always be subjective.

Except that we know the universe is here

Not a counter argument, but thanks for effort.

It is a counter if you understand how logic and reason works. When you decide that you’d like to learn I’ll be happy to help.

Yes, logic and reason exist as fundamental cognitive and structural principles

, enabling humans to derive conclusions and understand the world, and are even used by computers to process information. Reason is the human capacity to apply logic to existing or new information to seek truth, while logic is the formal system of principles that ensures correct reasoning and valid arguments. The concept of sufficient reason also suggests that there must be a reason or explanation for every event or truth. 

The pork sausage also exists as a fundamental cognitive and structural principle.

The principle of not consuming pork sausages is somewhat less fundamental, but an acquired principle nonetheless.

If we apply logic to the ham, then there is no fundamental cognitive and structural principle that dictates the impossibility of messianic portraiture.