Examine the following argument for atheism from the Big Bang (by Quentin Smith, in W. Craig and Q. Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology). Decide whether you think it is a good argument and argue either in support of or against the argument.1. If God exists and there is an earliest state of the universe, then God created that earliest state.2. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolent.3. A universe with life is better than an inanimate universe.4. Therefore, if God created that earliest state, then it must either contain life, or eventually lead to a universe containing life (from 1 and 3).5. There is an earliest state of the universe and it is the unique event of the Big Bang.6. The earliest state of the universe involves the life hostile conditions of infinite temperature, infinite curvature, and infinite density.7. Since the Big Bang event is inherently unpredictable and lawless, there is no guarantee that it will lead to a universe with life.8. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the earliest state of the universe will lead to life. (5 and 7)9. Therefore, God could not have created the earliest state (4 and 8)10. Therefore, God does not exist (1 and 9)My response: I have quite a few objections with this argument, but for the sake of briefness I'll only address a few premises. Premise 2: The problem I have with this is that I believe these attributes ascribed to God to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. If God is omniscient, then he knows even his own future, and therefore has no choice but to do A, however that makes him impotent because he cannot not do A. For example, if God knows that tomorrow he will part the Red Sea, then he cannot choose to not do it, because to do so would prove his lack of omniscience. The same can be said about his omnibenevolence; if God is all powerful and all loving, it is well within his (infinite) power to create a world where there still exists free will, but no suffering, since this is not the case God is either impotent or not all loving. Premise 3: now this is clearly a purely subjective premise, why is a universe with life better? Is it simply the presence of life that makes it better? Is a universe without life is the worst possible universe? Premise 4: I disagree with this premise on the grounds that a being that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent would never create a universe where there is any suffering at all. If God only wants the best, then why create life at all, life that may be subject to suffering; a universe without life would be better suited to a God who is all loving. Think of a pregnant woman who is considering abortion; she loves the baby, but she knows that (for whatever reason) there is a guarantee that the baby would suffer for its whole life. In that scenario, the mother would choose to spare the baby of the suffering by not having it at all in an act of love and compassion. Premise 7 and onwards: if the argument accepts in its earlier premises that God is omniscient (2) then you have to concede that no matter how unpredictable and dangerous the Big Bang was, God still knew it would work out into the universe with life as we know it. The final major contention I have with this argument, is the fact that it needs to exist at all. As far as I know, we don't all believe in Zeus and Thor and unicorns until a good argument comes around to dissuade us. All the non-believer has to do is demonstrate that it is unreasonable to believe in such a thing by refuting arguments for them, and let the rest work itself out.To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason...is like administering medicine to the dead.-- Thomas Paine