I want to address two other questions that spring from the "origin of the universe" question. The first is the origin of life question.

Unfortunately for the religious, the origin of life question, a sort of extension from the origin of the universe question, has no "something from nothing" contradiction, and can be scientifically explained. But even if it could not be, this question would simply be one that can be left unanswered, as the theories of evolution can still be observed and applied in real life.

The second question, however, is a question usually requires an answer. This is the question of the origin of morality, and especially in the past, and now, unfortunately for the irreligious, this answer always had some spiritual element.

Actually, the origin of morality can also be entirely explained scientifically. But humans are so intelligent, and have enough memory, that they can overcome the built in safeguards of morality and do things without considering the benefit of their own species or even themselves. One often cited example is the Holocaust. Most humans view will the Holocaust as an atrocity, but it is possible to draw another, completely amoral conclusion. We can question the purpose of morality, by asking ourselves why humans must abide by a moral code to ensure the genetic diversity of their own species, or go even further, by asking ourselves why humans should ensure the survival of their own species at all. This can be summed up by the fourth question of "what is the meaning of life". If we assume that the universe is completely random, we cannot come up with any specific reason for such meaning, leading to the answer that there is no meaning. And when there is no answer to this question, no amount of torture, murder, and on the opposite end, helping the poor, living in harmony with nature, is meaningful, so it leads to the inevitable conclusion that humans can do whatever they like.

The result is that because humans are able to pass on their acquired memories and behavior, entire societies can be built around such thinking, albeit societies that are probably, but not necessarily, less stable and more prone to self-destruction. Here, one must point out that it cannot be said which kind of society is ultimately better. However, everybody must admit, no matter what they think about religion, that religious societies have been more stable and have lasted longer throughout history, because virtually every society that has survived to modern day has had a religious factor. Even modern seemingly atheist countries like China have had their own spiritual and semi-spiritual figures which have moderated their society, such as Confucius.

So after addressing the four questions, we come to a reckoning.